> Are morals objective in this proposal?

As objective as the other morals enforced in the consensus rules, such as the anti-doublespend rule, the supply cap, and the proof of work requirement

To me, asking "What if the spam limits lose consensus in the future" is similar to asking "What if the 21 million cap loses consensus in the future"?

I think that would be a bad thing, and I would advocate for restoring it