Morals are Consistent

The man who gave me an arena to spew my antiwar/antileviathan propaganda and develop my ethical backbone in my collegiate studies, is Dr. Robert Williams. He is an associate professor of political science at Pepperdine University. His blog's most recent post covers Malala Yousafzai's recovery from a Taliban member's brutal attempt on her life. The Taliban member is morally wrong for initiating violence against Malala. This situation raises a question of consistency. If media outlets are outraged by the Taliban's initiation of the use of force, why not apply this sentiment to other such situations?

The Taliban formerly had control of the State in Afghanistan. Since its ousting the U.S. have listed it as a terrorist organization. Pejoratives aside, morals are that which we should have regardless of where we are from. A normative guide to human action.  They apply to individuals as well as groups of individuals. I find the decalogue to be a convincing moral compass for everyday living, but in political philosophy my go to is the non-aggression principle. It illustrates that whether a group of individuals is referred to as a State, government, terrorist cell, gang, mob or choir the same morality is expected of them. This moral obligation is to not encroach upon the self-ownership of other individuals by commencing the use of violence. 

Yes! Hear hear, to those who care about other individuals enough to oppose the morally reprehensible actions of the Taliban. I believe they should be commended for their boldness in a time of commonplace immorality. I will embrace them as a sister or brother, for their support against aggression. However, anyone who does not also detest the same actions on the part of the U.S. foreign policy is anathema to morality. An advocate of the U.S.' domestic policy is anathema to morality. Anyone who was against the Bush administration's pre-emptive strike policy in Iraq, but supported Obama's in Libya is anathema to morality. Anyone who says that they support both the 4th amendment and the Orwellianly named Patriot Act is anathema to morality. Anyone claims to support due process and the indefinite detention of humans in Guantanamo Bay (yup it's still open) is anathema to morality. Anyone who proudly waves the moniker of pro-life and supports the death penalty is anathema to morality. Anyone who would cry wolf at the sight of a street mugging, yet remains docile and complacent in the highway robbery that it takes to construct highways is anathema to morality. Anyone who stands up to declare that sexual harassment in the workplace is deplorable, and remains indifferent to the daily sexual assaults of the T.S.A. is anathema to morality. Anyone who wants to censor the speech rights of someone they disagree with, whilst protecting the speech rights of someone they agree with is anathema to morality. Anyone who thinks they champion women's rights and yet seeks compulsory dominion over the services women can provide with their own bodies is anathema to morality. Anyone who boasts that they are on the side of human dignity, whilst revoking Dwarven self-ownership is anathema to morality. Here is the red pill, the rabbit hole entrance and the point of no return. Anyone who promotes an institution established to protect private property that can only be funded by the involuntary expropriation of private property is anathema to morality. 

Disintegrate the State. Voluntarism/voluntaryism, noninterventionism, libertarian anarchy or put more poetically Laissez Faire, Holus Bolus.

Post Scriptum: For those seeking a more serious and rigorous examination of the non-aggression principle.  The inspiration for my anathemas is Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and his work on what he anathematizes can be found here. A nice take on free speech consistency. An instance of involuntary, and thus immoral, dwarf tossing. Wendy McElroy's interview on Scott Horton's radio that sparked this post.