Excellent topic Michael, and since it actually relates to architecure, I'll chime it from my prospective as a recreational player.
First, it seems to me that there are any number of ways of coming at this issue, all vaild. First, what do the professional architects actually do in practice, and why do the do it? As I read him, Jeff B has given us his short answer to that question. My recollection is that Tom Doak has also commented on his approach to this question from time to time here.
Second, apart from practicalities (protecting the land from developers, what the low-handicappers think), what does the fundamental nature of the game, however one defines it, have to do with how you approach the problem? I'll come back to this later.
Third, is it possible to design for all tees at the same time? (In other words, a "true course" from each set of tees). I believe that professional architects answer this one with an emphatic "no," based on what I've read here earlier, but I could be wrong about that.
As an aside, what's the history of multiple tees, and what does that have to say about the true course? I don't recall reading about that, specifically, in the history of golf, but my guess is that originally there was one tee on every hole. In the recorded beginning, didn't you tee off within a club length or of the "cup" on the prior hole? That would have had to suit everyone. At some point after that I expect that forward tees were added for "ladies" play, and back tees for championship (medal) play, which suggests that historically the middle tees were for the "true" course, the one played every day. Further, in my experience at many club courses in the home of golf, there is not much difference in length from the three sets of tees, and that for many the primary purpose of the separate back tee is to have a cleaner surface available for the championship matches.
Now, to close out this rambling, from my standpoint as a recreational player, the fundamental nature of the game suggests that you design for the average golfer, or at least for the average golfer that you wish to serve (taken as a given that you cannot design for everyone). You then move shorter hitters up and longer hitters back. So, the course is not "perfect" for them, which begs the question of exactly what do you mean by a "perfect" or "true" course. To my own way of thinking, if you go back to the beginning of the game, the course was laid out is as best or most interesting manner on the ground you had. I'm not saying that the hazards were random, but certainly more random than today. Whereever they were, the player had to avoid them. Whereever the best areas to hit the next shot from, the golfer had to try to find them. One of the things I like most about golf is that there is not one absolutely best way for everyone to play a shot. Longer hitters may have some advantages if the course is designed from the middle tees, but so what. They may also have some different challenges.