So, you don’t wish for our great authors to be comprehensible to future generations? You wish them to be as unreadable in the future as Shakespeare is today? You don’t want future generations to understand the culture & times from which their culture was spawned?
I’ve been the zoning administrator at a Zoning Board of Appeals hearing in which both sides were throwing their high-priced lawyers into the battle in order to win. Not only would the answer affect an investment of millions of dollars, it would also affect the development of the community and the region in a manner that would be felt for generations.
I debated in high school & college, and I read logic for fun. I shredded the attorneys’ briefs; I savaged them without mercy. But what do you think made the key argument hold? The grammatical analysis of an English professor, and the key point (IIRC) hinged on the use of a serial comma.
I suppose there are two reasons to advocate lax standards. The first, I think, is that grammar, punctuation, diction, &c., are not taught very well, so it is easy for most of us to see the distinctions as being negligable. The second is inexperience in seeing how importanty those distinctions affect those on the receiving end of written and spoken language. We cannot rely on faulty human memory to tell us what a bit of text is supposed to mean, especially as the time of writing become more distant. What the authors need to do is communicate their messages clearly and precisely (unless they intend otherwise 
), and to do so we need a standard by which communication is precise and well defined.
To eschew linguistic standards, and defend them, is like embracing the NASA goof that crashed a spaceship because they confused English and metric measurements. If one believes there is a single author, poet, musician, rapper, philosopher, or screenwriter alive today with a profound message to relate, then one is obliged to support conservative language standards; to do otherwise is to rob future generations of the wisdom one cherishes.