Sean,
I agree that sometimes golf courses are altered as a result of ego, arrogance, power trips, and "just because." I also agree that equipment regulation will not put a stop to all tinkering with classic courses. That said, I still see a strong correlation between technological equipment "advancements" and changes and alterations to the prevailing architecture over time. If you don't think that the adoption of the haskell ball has anything to do with why so many courses were altered in the early part of last century, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. Likewise regarding many of the alterations we are seeing today. Golf courses have always been changed with the goal to protect the integrity of the courses and to keep them relevant as the game changes. You and I may disagree with these goals and see them as shortsighted and unnecessary, but they have long been pursued nonetheless.
You ask whether I think another approach other than advocating for equipment regulation would be more prudent? I don't know. Maybe. Advocating for equipment regulation that actually protects the game certainly hasn't been very effective thus far. But then I don't think blaming the clubs, developers, owners, greens committees, etc. has been a very effective strategy either.
I guess I don't see it as a zero sum game where we have to choose one approach or another. I am all for trying to convince those who control the great courses to leave them alone. Part of this, I would think, would be explaining that their courses are already plenty long enough for the vast majority of golfers. But it seems to me that the shortcoming of this approach is that you are really trying to buck history here, and I think that relevant equipment limits would go a long ways toward convincing them that there course are not becoming outdated.
In short, Sean, I have no beef with anything you are advocating. I just don't see it as being all that effective given the history of the evolution of golf course architecture. Certainly the same thing can be said of advocating for some sort of reasonable equipment limitations.