Problem #1
(IFF) an action is free from all previous influences (THEN) it is necessarily indistinguishable from random noise (not willed or intentional).
Problem #2
Consequentialism (mitigating harm) is purely subjective.
Problem #3
Every argument for "natural law" breaks down when asked for specifics.
You generalized "don't steal", but does that mean taxes are immoral?
I believe your best argument for "natural law" is "natural order",
The will is necessarily affected by previous influences. Your actions are not "pure will" though, of course. Your actions are a combination of will and unknowable factors that are indistinguishable from random noise. The result is tautological in-determinism.
Consent can be manufactured. I trust you are familiar with mass marketing (con-artists). LINK
Without taxes, there is no mechanism to serve the public good.
Do you believe the "wild west" or "10,000 BCE" was "more moral" than modern society?
I agree that people can be tricked into consenting to things. Most of our society today is based on that.
People do not need to be forced to help others in order for others to be helped. When you build a society where people are forced to help others then they start to believe silly things like this.
Your question about the past has too many variables to answer briefly. I'll pick 10,000 years ago in Ireland where one of the great societies from before the last cataclysm (which happen regularly) managed to restart itself. They were a society based on Natural Law, and had been for many thousands of years before the cataclysm. They did not rely on force to serve the public good, they did good because they knew it was good for themselves and everyone else.
No comment on the incoherence of freewill?
So can your defend your claim that "consent is objective"?
Aren't there generally more examples of exploitative, dog-eat-dog societies (autocracies) than friendly cooperative societies?
Do you have a hypothesis that would mitigate disruption by warlords, mafiosos, and or vikings?
The subject of free will is ta big discussion, a not one I want to do right now. Suffice to say I used to believe it was a nonsensical idea. I was very in alignment with Sam Harris in his book on Free Will. I no longer believe him to be correct about that.
Either I consent to something or I don't. Seems objective to me.
Nowadays most societies are exploitative autocracies on Earth at the moment, but it wasn't always like that. If you're familiar with the Star Wars universe, we're in a period of time where the Empire is dominant, but these things ebb and flow.
Mitigate warlords by educating your children about the importance of freedom and arming them.
So you're a freewill convert? Do you perhaps have a link to the argument that convinced you?
I'd love to see it.
Sounds like an OPINION to me. How do you propose Quantifying consent in other people? How can you be confident that your consent was not somehow subtly coerced?
Ok, so you have no plan? We just need to wait it out?
Do you have some alternative solution that doesn't involve teaching children how to kill people?
I'll add the question, "Does Free Will exist?" to my list of pending videos to make.
It is not your opinion that I just said, "No," to you. The reasons behind why each individual gives consent to something is subjective, but the consent itself is not. It is not your responsibility to determine whether my consent has been manufactured from outside of myself, it is only your responsibility to respect it.
The rebound is not guaranteed, it requires work on the part of people who want freedom.
A willingness and knowledge of how to defend oneself is a requirement for a state of freedom. I don't believe it is a good idea to shield children from reality.