If a "near-consensus" agrees on a new behavior of the system, then open-source developers modify the code, and people indicate their agreement with the near-consensus by upgrading their wallets.
What is clear is that there is nothing even close to a "near-consensus" for most of these silly ideas.
I was actually referring to actually programming morality / law into the protocol. Starting from core axioms (of non-aggression), with potential competition in certain parameters ("statutes of limitation", criteria for land ownership, etc). I.e. the decentralization and real codification of the entire legal system. So users wouldn't be voting on the morals of the situation (that would already be pre-coded), but simply on the facts of the case, which are not under dispute in this case.
Of course, users will be free to disagree with the axioms or parameters of a particular brand of MoralCoin, and it would be fascinating to see which brand of law/morality would succeed.