Immanuel Kant
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."
Jesus
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
Hillel the Elder
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
Slightly varying accents all describing the same foundational absolute.
Hmm... You just litteraly saif that morality is relative...
Your sentences say "don't so to others what you don't want them to do to you". Which means each people will have a different definition of what should and should not be done as each person will consider something as acceptable or not...
Example: I consider ok to take parts of what's mine for the need of others. Some people do not consider it ok. Who is right here? Following your maxime no one is right or wrong, it just depends if you accept it or not.
Moral truth is absolute and objective. The application of that truth to specific circumstance is varied and colored by the imperfect perspective of the actor.
Take af_newbies challenge for example.
Some of us are born psychopaths, some are narcissists, some of us are masochists, some of us lack empathy, some of us do not understand biology and animal suffering, including human suffering, some of us are not educated. Do you see a problem?
He is of course correct that there are psychopaths and narcissists. However, if you look at their behavior they are not actually following a "do as you would be done by" code.
If you have ever seen someone of that temperament outsmarted or outmaneuvered their response almost always highlights their true philosophy. You do not see a calm acceptance of defeat at the hands of the more skilled or cleaver. Instead you see rage, anger, desire for revenge and power. The psychopaths wants to be free of constraint but they do not want to be the victims of their own philosophy. They want morality for sheep they can pray upon with only themselves exempt. It is a philosophy of power.
Those are really the only two alternatives a belief in objective morality or a philosophy of power. Everything else eventually finds it's way into one of those two camps. This hypothetical debate between Kant and Nietzsche highlights the contrasting views.
Kant vs Nietzschehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHJFWJgXuXgIn the video Nietzsche accuses Kant of being a slave to reasons while Kant in turn calls Nietzsche a slave to passion.
You note that you are ok if others presumably government take parts of what is your's for the needs of others. You also note that some people do not consider it ok and ask who is correct. You are essentially asking if it ok to steal when it is necessary to achieve a greater good.
The answer is that it is never ok to steal, however, sometimes it may be necessary to prevent an even greater evil. Thus we steal from the population as a whole to fund the military and prevent the greater evil of conquest and murder against us by outsiders. The error arises in those who think that via preventing the greater evil the lesser evil becomes somehow good. It does not. It is choosing bad to avoid worse and acceptable only until we can figure out a way to avoid worse by choosing good.
The people who feel that the theft is not ok are correct but the fact that the theft is not ok does not mean we are currently powerful or wise enough to abolish it at this moment in history.
I was merely pointing out that my statements were not in response to your comments, so I can understand why you were wondering what I was talking about 
