Redundant Rhetoric from Anarchological
The Golden Rule of reciprocity that was endorsed by Confucius, Rabbi Hillel, and Jesus Christ, was taught by all major religions, and was generally accepted as the principle standard for ethical behavior back in the days of the divine rule of kings and popes.
At that time, apparently, royal and religious castes were supposed to reciprocate among their peers, while slaves, serfs, amd peasants, could treat each other according to the Golden Rule, within their own groups.
Today, we don't have royalty or strong religious castes to "keep order", and it seems that people argue against the Golden Rule because they correctly view it as a slippery slope leading to individual liberty.. If one rejects the arguments for the divine rights of kings and popes, and believes that no person has more rights than another, and then also accepts the Golden Rule as a standard of behavior, involuntary taxation becomes illegitimate, and cherished beliefs in "constitutional republics", theocracies, collectivism, or other forms of government are threatened.
Trying to reach logical political conclusions while debating with hard core Rabbis, Jesuits, communists and others who Eric Hoffer called True Believers is impossible, because instead of trying to peel layers off an argument as you would an onion and then whittle it down to a point, the true believers are masters at doing the opposite, throwing in irrelevancies, changing the subject, and so on.. Their rejection of the Golden Rule as it applies to them seems like an effort to protect their own turf and retain their desired special status with God, a political elite, or an educational establishment.
Depite this, it seems that Confucius was correct in the belief that the Golden Rule of reciprocity is the most logical, humane, productive, and ethical behavior to try to pursue, and as Hillel said, "the rest is commentary".