Libertarianism Leads to Fascism at Best, Feudalism in the End

The question was put to me in the form,
"So what does Mussolini have in common with the Libertarians?"

When what I actually asserted was that,
"Libertarianism, logically leads to fascism at best, ..."

To which came the reply:
"How does Libertarianism logically lead to expanded government interference?"

Followed by the first question above.

What is being passed off as a modern ([sic] neoclassical oxymoronic much! or neoliberal from corporatist conservatism? Sure! Clue, what was a liberal perspective in the days if John Locke is no where near liberal today) politico-socioeconomic stance by rightwing ideologues who are adept at using false nomenclature to conceal the intent and motives of their ideology is a plutocratic ploy to maintain their exploitive power through wealth. Proto Nazis, and proto Fascists like Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hope, Frederich August von Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Friedman, et al., have since the earliest days of Carl Menger (c. 1880) served the plutocratic caste who longed for the days before democracy, before political equality, serfdom, slavery, the days of Courtier class, absolute power answering to none, and monarchies. Fascism is merely extremely retrogressive conservatism, complete with its castes, racism, aristocratic and plutocratic snobs, playing out in rhetorical, emotional, political, and financial manipulation of the masses to produce a stampede of frothing at the mouth stupidity, so the white male privilege is protected and rich boys get their way at the expense of their minions. Those miseducated hordes calling themselves libertarians, a Tea Party, fiscal conservatives, neoliberals, and a host of similarly fictive labels that are intentionally dishonest.

These so-called libertarians (I suggest we call them oxymorons) flip liberty from a freedom from coercion to the freedom to coerce. That freedom-from and freedom-to dynamic is a key aspect of many ideologies. This includes theisms especially, and all "isms" that are not anti-"isms," like atheism, which is anti-theism. I have also determined through years of thought experiment that ideologies, "isms," are an authoritarian tool of manipulation and that there are anti-ideologies* (the "ism" suffix is an unfortunate linguistic convention). These ideologies--all of which are authoritarian, manipulative, and baseless--also include all forms of capitalism, Republicanism with its nationalism, conservatism, racism, white male chauvinism, sexism, etc., and neoliberalism which is a misnomer for retrogressive economic classism. This inversion of liberty makes their libertarianism authoritarian, which is oxymoronic at best, or impossible as anything other than the mischaracterization of feudalistic subjugation of the exploitable.

Oxymoronic Libertarianism is sold as being all about rugged individualism, individual liberty, individual power but, like every imposed artificial structure, it breaks down because it is false and due to the imbalance it causes in a perpetually balancing system. At the level of social interaction, where cooperation meets control, where expertise meets exploitation, and where desperation meets competition, individuality is weak and their brand of liberty produces social outcasts ripe for forced servitude. Capitalism produces social structures where controlled experts are forced through exploitation to be competitive, then drained of the power (value) they produce. Authoritarian hierarchies are designed to exploit the weaknesses of individualism and reward loyalty to the institution and system. Because of two points, the first of which is supremacy of psychological manipulation, not only employees but also those influenced through the market, that is patrons, consumers, even competitors will be under the influence of said company's ideologies. Even if the individual holds her ground, her voice will be swamped. And secondly, the accumulation of wealth, the real power, will without a doubt be used to suppress the individual whose voice doesn't conform.

The Libertarian's liberties are suspended, not by an accountable government for the sake of social cohesion and cooperation, but by loyalty to a totalitarian capitalist enterprise for the sake of survival then power through profit, expediency, and monopoly. Or worse, forced conformity in an ideological manipulation station, like a church or a university. This herd mentality, in turn, exposes the fallacies of even the propped-up markets, blunts social progress and innovation, leaves as the only option inter-corporate warfare, intra-corporate power mongering, and eventually feudalism, warlords, and slavery. This state will be supplanted by an extremely ridged dictator or worse a theocracy. All of whom will use the psychological manipulation of fascism. So as a baseless ideology, oxymoronic libertarianism, better termed as antisocial individualism in its falsehood leads to totalitarianism. As an interactive system, this oxymoronic fiction of an individualistic social animal fails on the grounds that it becomes very animalistic which is extremely antisocial.

Although, this is quite damning to the fascio-capitalistic pseudo-libertarian and a direct answer to the question, it is even more fatal to Neoliberalism, and forget freedom or liberty in the context of capitalism.

I have witnessed fascists' assertions that Fascism is the control of industry by the government, it is not, and this diversionary ploy is typically evinced by newly indoctrinated Friedmaniacs in lunchtime circle-jerks, or social media threads of which intellectually honest people have grown tired. Contrary to what you may think, or may have been taught, fascism is simple to understand. If you consider who uses fascism, how it is used, what it is used for, when historically it emerges, who it is used against, and filter out the tangential, peripheral, and ancillary conditions it emerges as an anthology of extremist ideologies motivating the basest of psychological states in the lowliest of demographics to support extreme conservatism. Extreme in how retrogressive, how backward, and how, in consequence, immoral the goal of their conservatism would be. Fascism can be understood from the viewpoint of the public as a partnership, a complicit government with capitalists, to the detriment of the population at large, with the purpose of empowering the plutocrats who populate both government and capitalist institutions as well as the revolving door in between.

But Fascism is, actually, only a step on the way to the logical conclusion of neoliberalism (which I described above) from the democracy we have now. For as governments concede the power to protect the people and capitalists garner that power through the accumulation of numbers and the real power, financially based, government will become the complicit protector and puppet of the emergent corporatist system which is Feudalism and serfdom all over again.

If you are wondering how this could come about, just watch the News - it is happening right now. Even with a cursory understanding of Hitler's Germany, gathered through a perusal of authoritative history on the subject. It is easy to see the chilling similarities in Germany, during Hitler's rise through the religio-political socioeconomic system of Fascist apologetics, and the last forty years of events in the US. Hitler availed himself to a multi-tiered approach (because it was made readily available by Ludwig von Mises, et al., in economics, Martin Luther's writings in religion, the consequences of WWI for politics and social vilification), just as the rightwing in this country has been doing since the dawn of the antebellum South felt threatened before the Civil War. The rhetorical ploys of fascism, extremely retrogressive conservatism, need an enemy, or some emotional focal point. Hitler used the economic devastation of a global depression to finally tip the political balance in his favor after a decade of ideological suppression of those people, the outsiders, gypsies, gays, Jews, progressives, labor unions, any but the true German conservatives. He would expound for hours in vitriolic diatribes about the evil "atheistic communists" at the Homeland's gate, to instill fear and loathing in the ignorant masses. A group ripe for such manipulation through their Teutonic myths and Christian ideologies. It didn't matter that Hitler's unbelievable brutality was on par with that of Stalin's in a system that was neither true communism nor Marxism, and that they both were a dictatorship based on a cult of personality. Stalin learned basic properties of his style from years in seminary. This is truth of authoritarian red in twentieth century history, but I digress.

After gaining the trust of the masses with his simple black and white, either you're in or out, with us or against us exclusionary ideology that appealed to the baser instincts of the masses under the guise of a positively Christian (another ideology that appeals to baser emotions), he was free to mandate regulations that lead to Nazism through a political process structured through retrogressive conservatism or Fascism. Around the world, the would be Libertarians of the Austrian School, standing there with their mouth agape, wondering where it went wrong, were then tossed aside in a war torn pile of confusion. They thought they were free of the opinions and voting rights of the "outsiders," those Elitists, those that didn't follow their god, didn't live or work hard like they did, those that met challenges in different ways, those that were not supposed to be qualified to take their jobs. They thought they were free. The libertarians were glad to see business booming do to the public regulations and deregulation of the German Military Industrial Complex. They thought they were free to pursue happiness; they thought, then the BS started, the technocratic excuses, the rationalizations, the hardliners and purists. In a viral sort of way, this is another commonality today's oxymoronic libertarians share with Mussolini.

You see, libertarianism has a serious flaw, an irrational blindspot common to ideologies of this nature, and it's not readily visible to those who long for the freedom to be self-serving, selfish, or self-centered. It remains totally undetectable to those suffering from a Dunning-Kruger illusion. We are members of a social species, a society. And in a society, individual ambitions must collaborate within the constraints of a social contract. The Libertarian is left with only the semblance of freedom, the myth of liberty, a childish wish that can lead to so many heinous ideologues gaining power of which Hitler and Mussolini were only two. But more specifically to the conservative perspective known as fascism, neoliberalism has another flaw that is, at its root, far worse than selfishness, it is based on an adaptation of Herbert Spencer's Social elitism (sadly, this was inappropriately mischaracterized as Social Darwinism), a Lamarckian variant on selection and survival of the fittest, a jungle mentality that states; Those that can should, and those that can't, should be left behind. Forgetting, for obvious reasons, that we are all in this precariously balanced, interwoven network of nature, together. The social contract is with all entities of this system. This is what Ayn Rand never understood. And, this is why our Founding Fathers wrote a living, changeable, developing, and progressive governing document.

So, Mussolini's Fascism manipulated a popular longing for social, national, and cultural supremacy. The population, like these oxymoronic libertarians, did not understand that this leads to, and is fueled by, social elitism (Herbert Spencer's, survival of the fittest). The consequences of which, leaves powerful institutions (like churches and other corporations), not individuals, at the helm, while destabilizing governments, societies, and the environment. Then these manipulated masses find themselves at the whim of powerful cabals, oligarchs, and corporations.

Who's Rights of Conscience

I keep seeing this passage over and over again in Christian literature; "rights of conscience," as if it is in the Bill of Rights. In the original 'draft' of the First Amendment James Madison included a similar line,"No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases." But this was not included by Congress originally and until acceptance of the Fourteenth Amendment (1868) which was followed by Supreme Court case Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, (1925) that made most, but not all, of the provisions of the Bill of Right's restrictions applicable to the states under the doctrine of selective incorporation, states had some leeway with the Constitution.

Obviously, this "rights of conscience" is a canard, in Madison's original it is "equal rights of conscience" which would include those of us against religious encroachment into private lives. As in, I cannot in good conscience keep loving couples apart for the sake of a superstitious tradition. This by itself isn't the point though, it is that the rights of individuals are being impeded by those using their supposedly threatened "rights of conscience" as a battle cry. I am so sick of majority power feigning persecution while persecuting every minority in sight. The Nationalist Socialist Party used this same tactic more than 80 years ago, by proclaiming Catholics the persecuted minority and attacking the gays, gypsies, foreigners, and finally Jews, we all remember the Nazis. I know reductio ad Hitlerum, but I do see a correlation. 

But I don't think that romantic unions are something that religions need be a part. I happen to be a civil union proponent. But not for gays, per say, no I think marriage should be like and as common as baptism or bar mitzvahs. But I also happen feel that the population of the planet is at a breaking point. Not everyone is qualified to be a parent. I think children are the leaders of the future and our most precious possession.

I ask, "Would you convert for cash Antony Flew?"

The religious are clambering all over each other to hail Antony Flew, the alleged ex-atheist who supposedly "changed his stance on the existence of god" and then wrote a book about it. But wait, with all the new atheist authors out there, eg. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, et al. how could someone stand stand against that crowd? I thought. Then this idea came to me.

As I read the book that was supposedly Flew’s arguments, I was very interested to find the evidence that changed his mind, of course. His original position was powerful and I was desperately looking for this new evidence, and especially how he was going to rebut his own, earlier arguments. After all, I am convinced few people, who are presently thoughtful atheists, would be easily convinced that there is evidence for a supernatural entity. Atheists rely on evidence. 

But I was sorely disappointed. It was as if Flew, who, as it turned out, was only interviewed for the book, it seems he either forgot his earlier arguments against God,  pretended he didn’t have any, or this was some sort of shady hit and run interview where pointed questions are asked and scientific answers are manipulated to fool the pious and scientifically illiterate. For several hours I pondered over this issue. The book was very short and written by a pan handling Christian apologist with a less than stellar resume named Roy Abraham Varghese. But still, how could someone who was once so sharp and so logical just pretend his earlier arguments didn’t exist? How could he ignore what he had professed, or written earlier in his career? I mean, if he couldn’t really answer his earlier arguments against God, (in the book he omitted discussing most of them at all) how in the world did he change his mind? I have viewed this video of him seemingly incoherently answering an interviewers questions, as if his mental faculties are diminished due to age. What I thought I saw in that interview may have had more to do with my interpretation than with Flew's condition, but I think there is something to the notion that he may be loosing the edge, he is an octogenarian now. Then...

Flew, you sly old dog. I’m on to you. Although, I can understand why you would do it, for you, it makes perfect sense. Since, just bare with me a moment, you know there isn’t some imaginary sky fairy watching you, you really have nothing to worry about as far as retribution in an afterlife. You don’t have to worry if you, dare I say, lie! I can see what would motive someone to this contrivance. Your fame is dying down, the New Atheists are being hailed as the rationalists to reckon with, maybe... stealing your thunder? Damn that Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Harris, etc. What else can an old man like you bring to the debate? Why would people want to read what you have left to say? If only you could get into that religious book market. But you would need to change your story, then you would have the whole religious community “worshipping” you - "the famous atheist who was smart enough to see the light." Cough! Then, once again, you will become an intellectual hero. Anyway, who cares, which side of a philosophical point is idolizing you, hailing your name, or at least making you famous? Christians, atheists; does it even matter to you? Of course not! If they buy the book, maybe speak your name, you’ll be happy.

So, how could you do this, without demolishing your hard earned reputation in philosophy? Change your story, of course, but how? A death bed conversion would only put your reputation in disrepute, not enough time for a book deal or those insistent interviews. But if you were to, say, convert now - but not a full Christian conversion, no - to a god of the gaps deistic meta physic, that holds to an a priori creator. This doesn't contradict all of your prior work, not all of it. So, that’s what you did, isn't it. But hey, now you’re back in the limelight. Now your name (and book) is back on the world stage. Sure, you had to jump the fence. Tell me, is it easier to play stupid or sophistic?

Undoubtedly you had to go against your own mind, but who cares, right? There’s no punishment waiting for you after you die. But there are those pesky New Atheists out there that have seen this world through similar eyes as yours. We both know this. But hey! Why not, I mean it's not like you are making a difficult life worse for the rest of us? Go ahead, change your tune, become famous again - rake in that cash. I’m sure the income and notoriety will cleanse that taste out of your mouth after your conversion. But what if your family is forced to live in a new age of bigotry, zealotry, or hate mongering that your new found world view heralds, your recent conversion bolstered. What if! Ah, what do you care? Denial, is a great thing. Isn't it?

And as for your new audience, it's great isn't it, they’re willing to believe anything and I mean anything. To them, you will be almost as famous as JC himself, maybe more famous to those clinging to what is left, of a belief in the belief. You should have no problem becoming their poster child, no problem at all. Right, Antony? All you have to do is forget what you professed earlier, which I can attest you have done so well as to have many of your would be ideological compatriots thinking in terms of Alzheimer's, or another dementia, touché. Even in your book, apparently, since you failed to reconcile your own arguments, just as many Christian apologists fail to do.

I understand. The money, the fame, they can drive some to do...  things. And since we both know there’s no evidence supporting a supernatural realm, or anything relating to the supernatural that has ever been verified in the history of mankind, it's safe to logically predict there isn't much of a chance we will find a deistic realm. Let alone, a supernatural realm for some mystic to be keeping score of our lives, so, why the hell not?
Enjoy your money and fame Flew. The turmoil you have left in this revolution is not insurmountable, the turbulence you stir in your wake will only hone my skills of insurrection, so go ahead Flew, forget what you have learned. In the end, I’ll have my dignity. But who knows, I might convert to deism myself, if that is what it takes to stop the bigotry. But seriously, I doubt it. I like fighting toe to toe, way too much Mr. Flew.

And so I did. Finding the work of Richard Carrier, philosopher, historian of science, and writer. I found links to the real story and all the evidence showing that Roy Varghese was more of a conman than I originally thought. Anthony Flew didn't change his position at all. He did what every honest philosopher would do. He left room for intellectual honesty in the lightfootedness of his stance. His mistake was in assuming the forthrightness of his interviewer. Sorry old man, I should have better. You were always quick to accommodate. 

On the Question of Morality

In almost any discussion regarding a rational view of morality, and secular humanism in particular. The old canard concerning morality without god(s) will more than likely come up, usually as a conversation stopper. Which explains why it, upon closer examination, appears to be ill contrived in a historical context, especially with the positive affirmation of evolutionary origins of our behavior, including morality from great minds like George Williams, Robert Trivers, and John Maynard Smith, not to omit so many others. But, like the stagnant bronze age morality of the Bible, the arguments for divine morality haven't changed for at least 2500 years as exemplified by the Socratic question, also known as Euthyphro's Dilemma:

"Is what you're doing pious, [moral] because it is loved by the gods, or do the gods love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious [moral]?"

Now I bring this up to highlight some inescapable points regarding morality. The most crucial of those points is clarified when we dispense with those myths and the unfortunate habits of thought mushrooming from those fictions. Religions, especially the monotheisms of the Abrahamic variety, are the original source of this hypostatization, this reification, this objectification, of a concept so morality could be usurped and repurposed through the dictates of tyrants as some thing absolute, when this concept is anything but absolute.

Before I go further, I need to clarify some terminology that has, for far too long, been purposefully opaque. First, superior moral choices eliminate suffering. Superior morality is an ethical activity that eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering while enhancing health, happiness, and fulfillment. When I use the term objective I mean only perceivable evidence that can be experienced by any cogent, sentient entity undistorted by feelings, emotions, or bias. Subjective is the interpretive aspect of that observation, perception, and cognition dynamic. Relative, therefore, is not an aspect of superior morality or superior moral choice. Relativism can only apply to cultural conditioning, regional traditions, or state regulations and related dictates, but not morality. Right and wrong are relative and far too ambiguous to be used in discussions of moral or ethical considerations. To avoid confusion with a growing array of misuses, I will use correct and incorrect where possible. When I use absolute it will be to denote the authoritarian abstraction for perfectly right, which is irrational nonsense because right is relative and perfect is impossible. For this reason absolute morality is a fiction, but many ideologues and fundamentalists argue otherwise. 

Morality is not a property of the universe (nature) like, say, the freezing/boiling points of water, E=mC², or the properties of physical entities subject to the Laws of Thermodynamics. This view strikes me as silly, of course, but there are ideologues who try to argue for this ontologically. This is to say that morality is not, has never been, and can never be some thing passed down or imposed. Morality is not absolute, it cannot come from authoritarian commands, i.e., what is the best way to eliminate suffering in one situation may have horrendous consequences in another; therefore, authoritarian commandments are immoral. Morality is neither the accepted convention of the majority, nor something that can be conserved through religio-political socioeconomic traditions. The attainment of supremely moral outcomes is not possible solely through concepts learned through the experience of our antecedents though this does get us closer, especially when considering the surviving memes of an evolving society.

Moral choices are subjectively relative, (subject to an understanding of a given situation, relative to the circumstances). But this is not to say morality is either subjective or relative. The elimination of suffering is neither a matter of opinion nor a convention of culture. This is why humanity, as we gain understanding, alter conventional morality for the better: i.e. slavery, stoning (in more evolved societies), females as property, etc., all eliminated from the list of acts considered pious, moral, or loved by the god(s).

Unlike the choice of which side of the road we drive on in the US as opposed to, say, Britain, an example of civil law enacted to instill a convention throughout a population that is neither correct, nor incorrect, merely expedient as an accepted practice, morality is not the practiced conventions of a society because moral choices cannot be imposed through authority or authoritarian structures. It does not matter that it is accepted by the majority as good and right for all, even when this may be the case for very good reasons, and it often is. Superior moral choices are derived from critically assessing objectively observed evidence of a situation, the particulars, the participants, the past actions that are relevant, and comparing these perceptions to substantiated facts in one's available background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering, or prevents the most suffering for all concerned. Despite the claims of religious moralists, this is what typically happens. No deities required. This is the driver of moral progress in tandem with intellectual advances producing social progress and societal evolution, and it is the bane of retrogressive conservative plutocrats who do everything they can to hold onto their exploitive power in the face of a progressively elusive target.

That many sentient beings collaborate for their mutual benefit, means we see many progressive actors evolving for the betterment of all in free societies, but conservative actors stagnate into degradation in dictatorial societies like tyrannies or theocracies where a dictator or an oligarchy chooses (decides) what is "right" or "wrong." This is also all  the evidence anyone would need to verify that these United States are not in any way a Christian Nation, because absolute authority is antithetical to democracy. It is for similar reasons that rules, regulations, and laws are a product of the majority's experiences as a practiced convention, while morality flourishes, progresses, grows intellectually, pragmatically, and in freedom's vein as opposed to the dictates of an oppressor, dictator, oligarchy, or patriarchal god(s). In other words, this country is based on actual morality, not the dictated precepts of a stagnant, logically inept tradition.

So, to the question, can one be moral (good) without god(s)? The answer is an emphatic yes! The glaring question now becomes: can one be moral with god(s)? I think I have given ample reason to reject that assertion, also emphatically.

Alas, I understand, totally disagree with, but understand the fears of people who espouse concerns about moral chaos without some central authority. They want us to believe all is permissible without their patriarchal sky-tyrant. It's the basis of their patriarchal control system. They forget that the reason our Founding Fathers and this country's Constitution is the crowning achievement of the Age of Enlightenment is because, "We the People" are our Government "We" have replaced the central authority and "We" decide "right" and "wrong," as it progresses with our ever advancing morality.

Now, like any progressive, enlightened thinker, I have my detractors.  Between Twitter and religious bloggers so eager to spend all day debating the existence of god(s), to call what came next argumentum ad nauseam would be an insult to those little Latin chunks, which had more substance. But, when nature calls: 

[Edited for legibility and clarity so I could avoid many [sic] tags] 

"I've been debating Beachbum on Saturday on the existence of God. We talked about scholars and he made some accusations against William Lane Craig who he said he could refute. Craig has a three-point reasoning the existence of God.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists."

Both premises are false, obviously. Irrespective of the existence of objective moral values, the biblical God does not exist. Objective moral values do not exist. Morals are concepts and do not exist as some thing passed down. What we value is subjective. And William Lane Craig isn't even a talented sophist.

"Beachbum rejects the existence of objective moral values. He retweeted a tweet from last Thursday in which he tried to argue that a god is not needed to have morality.[1] I have represented his tweet below and will respond point-by-point. My comments will be in yellow font. In our interaction we focused on whether or not morals such as marriage was really universal and objective.[2] He admits that it is rare for a society to reject marriage but he offered two such cultures: !Kung San in Africa and The Na of China."

[1] I successfully argued like above, that morality results from empathetic interaction and cannot possibly come from structures of authority and backed that up with the Socratic Dialogue, Euthyphro's Dilemma.

[2] Marriage is a regulated cultural convention used as a building block for civilization, which is a system of enforced conformity to facilitate nationalistic and plutocratic exploitation. 

(Regarding the !Kung San and the Na of China, I offered a description of their marital tradition pertaining to their marital practices as evidence that my interlocutor's claims refuted his argument, but this has nothing at all to do with morality.)

Some of the responses are little more than attacks that are embarrassing, so it would be best for me to rebuild some arguments just to canvass a realm of objections for our enlightenment. These will be snippets plucked from an attempt to insult.

"Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue."

Obviously. In point of fact, this was the contrast I was attempting to make. The difference between morals, regulations, conventions, and traditions. 

"There is no way road regulations can be equated with adultery or stealing."

Because road regulations are neither correct, nor incorrect, merely a safety convention, but adultery threatens the family unit. And the family unit is the first level of control through forced conformity in the structure of civilization, nationalism, race, and community. So, obviously, there is nothing perfectly right, i.e., absolute about adultery because marriage is a cultural convention with variations like polygamy.

Now stealing is even less absolute with even more cultural conventions. Spoils of war is one such convention. The Hawaiian people had no concept of theft resembling the European view. The hyperbole escalates in this next comment. 

"If Beachbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay. Remember when it was against the law to live as a homosexual?" 

No, we need to remember how to make superior moral choices. Superior moral choices are derived from critically assessing objectively observed evidence and comparing it to substantiated facts in one's background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates suffering, or the most suffering for all concerned. Pedophilia causes so much suffering, on so many levels, for so long that it is inconsistent with elimination, mitigation, or alleviation of suffering. 

Law is not morality. Laws are regulatory conventions that have nothing to do with morality. Therefore, that homosexuality is biblically condemned as an abomination punishable by death, that it was once treated as a mental disorder, and now has been scientifically demonstrated to be as natural and beneficial to our species as heterosexuality and more and more sane people now ignore those primitive texts actually demonstrates my point as well as any other point of contention. 

"Just because a majority of people say something is right, doesn't make it right. Hitler and many others have done all kinds of things that we find reprehensible. But why? What right do we have to say that we are right and they are wrong?"

Exactly, but this is not morality. It represents cultural conventions and an appeal to the gallery fallacy. It could be called tyranny of the majority in some cases. But this is a situation where the word right is confused with moral. Right by convention has nothing to do with morality. Right by tyrannical dictate, or government, has nothing to do with morality. So, what authority gives us the ability to judge the moral superiority of some act or omitted act? Not the god-fraud. For one thing, its reprehensible dogmas tell us not to judge. Is it laws? Of course not, laws, regulations, and conventions are based on power and have nothing to do with morality.

So, what is it? It is science, knowledge, and the scientific method. We critically assess, objectively observe the evidence, and compare it to substantiated facts in our background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering, or the most suffering for all concerned. It is this understanding of the power in assessing on sight, event specific, objective evidence that gives each of us the moral authority.

"We all agree that it is wrong for me to come up to you, kill you, but why? Is it wrong because it is wrong or because we agree that it's wrong?"

The evidence of inflicted suffering, but not for the murder victim. The dead suffer nothing. But the family and other survivors who need or may one day need the victim or her knowledge. There may be many more who suffer due to your murder. But what if you kill someone causing a great deal of suffering? The odds are with you that you are acting morally. What if the victim has caused only a little suffering or is about to kill someone else. Wound if possible, based on the evidence. But you will not get this from an anthology of myths that treat you like an ignoramus that cannot assess the situations yourself, only to brag relentlessly about some of the most immoral and amoral acts ever committed, had they been true.  

"Explain why "your good" is just as important as mine. As a Christian I have a simple answer: God says your good is just as important as mine because he created both of us in his image." 

First, good is relative. What is good for you may not be good for me. And, considering that you are a Christian, I seriously doubt it. But I am not concerned with your relativism, or your appeal to authority. What does concern me is that your derangement has you believing that your immorality in ignorance is just as valid as my moral acts and judgments based on education and evidence. This is a serious problem for humanity and a major reason why these backward superstitions should be pitched in the dustbin of bad ideas.

And one more thing, your "God" never said anything. You have a completely unsubstantiated belief based on Bronze Age desert goat herder myths written by authors of fantasies describing several different deities of which none can possibly exist. Lying is immoral. 

"Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is." 

For the sake of brevity, I will assume you mean moral. But still, an objective moral standard anchors our ethics to an immoral past. Your anthology of theology anchors our moral choices to an age of barbarism. The standards of Locke, Kant, and Hume anchor our morality to an era of monarchy, castes, comparable ignorance, and slavery. So, an objective moral standard is nonsensical relativism. 

Morality has nothing to do with right and wrong. This is an establishment bait and switch perpetrated by the religio-political socioeconomic system of control to maintain the status quo.

If you want something by which to measure your moral choices, something that will guide you through every moral morass, there is only one that will keep you on the moral high ground. 

Superior moral choices are derived from critically assessing objectively observed evidence of a situation, the particulars, the participants, the past actions that are relevant, and comparing these perceptions to substantiated facts in one's available background experience. Then extrapolating this assessment into the future with the particulars of the subjects, contexts, and objects in sight, the moral actor does that which eliminates, mitigates, or alleviates suffering, or prevents the most suffering for all concerned.

This alone will keep you on the cutting edge moral superiority. The more experience you have access to, the more education, the more thinkers and perceiving participants, the better your moral choices will be. You will not get any of this from the god-fraud.