Read my earlier post.
I'm assuming you mean the one quoted below.
Hence each man’s values may only be advanced by evaluating the world, forming rational conclusions, and acting for himself.
Or rephrased, Each man's morals are imposed only by his own goals.
The free-will choice to act in accordance with one’s own values is recognized by other more traditional names, the most recognizable of which is “the pursuit of happiness”.
In order to pursue the rational advancement of their values, individuals must be free to act in accordance with the dictates of their own will. In recognition of the fact that the will of individuals may conflict in advancement of their values,
So I must be free to advance my own goals and pursue my own happiness.
a rational restrictive boundary is created at the intersection of competing wills. This boundary reconciles the potential for conflict, by defining as a right, any action in accordance with the dictates of the will of the individual actor, which does not infringe upon the ability of other individuals to do likewise.
And here is where you lose it. Who gives a flying f#$% what anyone else wants to do as long as I am free to pursue my own happiness
. Without an externally supplied code of moral behavior all ethics degrades into "he who has the biggest gun wins". It doesn't matter if I infringe another's rights because in my moral code he has no rights. (the fact that he feels exactly the same is irrelevant).
Morals are always implemented through force or implied force. Fear of punishment keeps our evil natures in line, whether that punishment is temporal or spiritual. Anticipation of reward spurs the vast majority of good works. (I phrase it this way as there may be an infinitesmally small portion of real altrusim out there, but I doubt it). Morals only exist because God exists. Without God there is no moral code. (other than every man for himself)