Morality is not entirely subjective, nor can it be.

You know how the saying goes; hell you might have even used it yourself once or twice. "Don't judge people." It's a paraphrasing (albeit a poor one) of the lesson that Christ taught in his Sermon to not judge, lest you be judged by the same measure, and it's just an extension of the Golden Rule. We've all heard this a billion times from a million different directions. Every collectivist and every moral relativist will point to this ubiquitous phrase as indication that, if you try to judge them for what they do, you're a hypocrite and you should really just keep your mouth shut.

Setting aside the inaccuracy of this paraphrasing of Christ, how can it possibly be claimed that you can't judge people? The relativist will claim that morality is subjective, therefore making moral value judgments is an impossible task. After all, discriminating against people based on subjective preference is arbitrary, and no one group or person can claim the moral high ground specifically because it's subjective. There is no absolute right or wrong, and anyone who claims that there is such a thing is wrong. Aside from the fact that saying there's no such things as absolutes is a performative contradiction, there's another problem with this notion. There actually is a single, universal moral constant that is immutable and is true whether or not one chooses to accept it as true: consent.

Consent is a universal moral standard

The moral relativist would have you believe that if enough people get together and say they can violate the consent of another smaller group, then it's fine and dandy. If you push this line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, they'll usually backpedal and sputter some nonsense about how everyone should be able to defend their bodies against someone trying to hurt them (ask a moral relativist whether rape is a grand idea and watch them squirm). This backpedaling reveals the contradiction in their logic, and it exposes the fact that even they acknowledge the universal moral standard: consent.

Consent is how human beings enter into meaningful relationships with one another, and it applies even if the people engaging in some sort of transactional relationship don't acknowledge it. Consent is universally preferable. How do we know this, though? Well, that's simple. It's impossible to consent to having your consent violated. Trying to claim that you prefer to have your consent violated is a performative contradiction. You can't have someone violate your consent without withholding your consent; otherwise it's just a consensual act. You can't consent to rape. If you try to make the claim that you can, then it ceases to be rape and becomes rough sexual intercourse or BDSM. Same with murder, extortion, theft, assault, and every other property and personal crime.

Consent under duress is not consent

This is why a state cannot ever be governed by the "consent of the people." The state, by its definition, imposes laws upon people, many times against their will and without their consent. Even the highest form of government, which most people think is a constitutional republic, still operates on the principle that, if enough people vote in favor of something, your consent is irrelevant. This is why we can say that the state is an immoral construct.

"You still pay taxes and drive on the roads, so you consent to government!" First of all, no. More specifically, I have no alternatives. If the only alternative course of action is to be subjected to threats of violence or actual violence, then consent cannot be derived; coercion violates consent, and therefore cannot be used to procure consent from an individual or group of individuals. In the same way that a woman not fighting back against her rapist is not evidence of consent to the sex act, paying taxes to avoid the thuggery of the state is not consent to be ruled by the state.

Should we avoid the state in every way we can? Absolutely. That's a decision for the individual to make, though, based on their preferences and the calculation of opportunity cost associated with it. Regardless, consent is a universal moral standard, and violating consent is universally wrong.

Andrei Chira is a vaper, voluntaryist, and all-around cool dude. Formerly a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne Division, he now spends his time between working at VapEscape in Montgomery County, Alabama, contributing to Seeds of Liberty on Facebook and Steemit, and expanding his understanding of...well, everything, with an eye on obtaining a law degree in the future.