I thought you might like that.

Wow. Intriguing. Pretty cool.

Yes he does. It's important to realize that the "no harm" injunction is much deeper than that, stifling your entire life in very personal terms if you had to follow it even voluntarily as a standard of morality, which is why it of course leads to the calls for brute force.

Yes! And Maph also loves force,...when it used against those who "discriminate" or 'persecute', or CHOOSE to not do business with those they disagree with. So, there ya go.

He has repeatededly been misrepresenting Ayn Rand's philosophy, claiming that the "non-aggression principle" is the basis for her philosophy, not just an "important element". He confuses philosophy with politics and doesn't know what her philosophy is.

The "harm none" formulation is even worse. It does not mean "nonaggression", which itself is only a vague substitute for the principle of forbidding initiation of force and fraud, though sometimes taken to mean the same thing.

If you aren't allowed to "harm" anyone in your pursuit of your own values, then you can't associate with people you choose to for any reason while excluding others who claim to be "harmed" by it. You can't exercise your right of freedom of speech because it "harms" those "offended" by it.

You can't invent a new device that "harms" those selling older and poorer substitutes. And they can't continue to do that if it "harms" you with your improvement. In the economic realm of direct markets a business can't fire anyone or pay a lower wage than is claimed to be "harmful", and he can't raise a price that would "harm" a consumer or lower a price that would "harm" a competitor, or keep a price the same that "harms" anyone. You would constantly be at the mercy of anyone and everyone claiming to be "harmed" by your own honest and peaceful choices and actions.

I stand corrected, ewv. Maph's point was that the principle of non-aggression is an important element, and that is still a valid point.

When the existing law is wrong, the best course of action is to change it, not adopt anarchy as a matter of principle in the name of morality.

"Do as you will; Harm none" not a starting point for morality and is incompatible with the morality of Atlas Shrugged. At most it is a crude and inaccurate political statement.

The first part, "do as you will" claimed to be a basis for "morality", is open-ended hedonistic anything goes with no standards, and the second part, "no harm none", qualifies it only in regard to effects on others plus a broad proscription against pursuing your own values that may in any way vaguely be construed to "harm" someone else. This is a combination of subjectivism and a form of altruism, making "others" the only source of a standard. That is no principle for living your life and isn't the way you do it in your own life and work. But it's typical of the a-philosophical, "hippy libertarian" mentality.

The morality of Atlas Shrugged is based on the requirements for making choices in your own life, with the nature of human life as the source of virtue. It does not restricting morality to the realm of dealing with others. It requires the virtue of rationality, together its basic implications for independence, integrity, honesty, productiveness, pride, and justice -- which does not mean the subjectivist "do whatever you will" with no standards required.

What you offer to others in accordance with those virtues depends on their value to you, whether they are people of high personal value, fellow traders, or the population at large to which you acknowledge and grant the rights which are necessary for living in civilized society -- which does not mean do nothing broadly construed as "harm" as a moral basis for dealing with others.

My favorite comment about rules, laws morals,and actions has been " by whose standers and who will be the judge"

I didn't think Scripture bore mention here. I was afraid to mention it--afraid I might stand in violation of TOS.

Well quoted.

Here in Melbourne, FL, we have a talk show host named Bill Mick. He uses "Uncommon Sense" as one of his radio promotional "bumpers".

Still skirting I see. Ok, (italics anybody?) Where...did MLK Jr get his morals from?

You are most correct.

I agree with Maphesdus' succinct "Do as you will. Harm none." as an excellent starting point for morality. As for where morals should come from, morality should be self-evident; unfortunately what should be common sense isn't common anymore. Perhaps that is the origin of the moniker UncommonSense?

Axiom?
Is it anything like, "live and let live"?

Uh huh. Skirting on the edges of Biblical territory without going full-on into the Scripture. It seems you're inching closer to the Truth. This is a good sign.

Interesting last point. But where should these morals come from?