Another response came from "No Trust" on the date of 2006-06-26. It is short, so I will simply post it.
Saying that the pursuit of happiness is the only moral rule is the same thing as saying that everything done is moral.

Unless you arbitrarily define 'happiness' to imply having certain ends, which is exactly what Objectivists do.

Before responding to this, however, I will present his second argument, e-mailed to me after the first, and from the same person except under the name of his e-mail address, it goes as follows

Happiness is simply getting what you want. It is subjective, and so that means any morality based on it is meaningless. Define 'happiness' according to some religious text if you will, but in the end you're just playing games with semantics.

The actual argument here is the second, since in the first he explicitly says so. The main argument in the later is that "It is subjective" or 'happiness is subjective'. This begs the question... subjective- to whom?

Happiness (and thus morality) is only subjective when it deals with irrelevant objects. One person may like brownies, the other may like cake. One may like lemonade, and the other milk. One person may enjoy a bath, while the other a shower. These are subjective views of happiness; they are joyful indulgences in the product of man's mind. Whether one traded truthfully for such products, they can still enjoy the sensual pleasures from them; and thus they declare that their feelings are the only level which determines levels of happiness. Whoever listens to different people's likes and dislikes; he can choose to share their likes and dislikes; but he has the freedom to pursue his own happiness, that is the base of our government (by the way, not the base of my philosophy. The base of my philosophy is the three axioms, the axiom of existence, the axiom of consciousness, and the axiom of identity; all to which lead to self respect at my own consciousness and as my basic code of ethics to pursue my own happiness). But does a person feel happy when they spend money that they stole (or got from some other immoral means). He experiences the sensual pleasure that such an item creates, but he does not truly feel happy; because happiness and joy come from the achieving of value. He stole the money because he coveted the creator's ability to create, and thought that by taking the money, he could substitute the effect (the creation of wealth) from the cause (creativity with purpose, intelligence with reason). People who earn money possess self-esteem, and take life as a joyful experience. Thus he thought by stealing money he too could posses self esteem. He believes that the result is the cause; and he will fight this as being happiness to the ends of his days, because he does not want to ask the question: from where did such indulgence come?

He runs in blind fear of such a question, because it is the question that would destroy his charade (but only if he asked it of himself). Such stems the belief that happiness is subjective, and since there is no scientific definition that defines happiness (i.e. a specific firing of the neural pathways, etc.); people proclaim that any orgy of death they experience, or joy in life, could be happiness, or couldn't be happiness; while at the same time saying that happiness cannot exist. Joy is a response to values. Someone who has the values of life enjoys things that resemble such a value: skyscrapers, beautiful paintings, new discoveries in science, a realization they make on their own. All they love is a response to their values (including others, I will soon include an article that defines love, look for it later). Those who have a philosophy of death (existence does not exist, because my feelings say it does not exist, or, in other words, a Kantian view) can only get some remnant of joy out of that which resembles death, a the whore off the street corner, an intelligent hobo, a savage in a tribe. The existence of such beings gives them a sense of fulfillment because they subconsciously integrate suffering as being the highest value and the term to which things are bought. The greatest example is the welfare state, that people should obtain help, not because they are striving for life, but because they need food, they need sustenance, and who are we, the creators of sustenance and life, to deny it to them. They claim their need as a token of their moral right to obtain what the creators have created.

When an a-moral (anti life) philosophy views something of death; they enjoy it, because such existences justify their philosophy as correct. Their philosophy is derived from death and despair, as holding men as human, meaning in their terms, not perfect, and unable to be perfect, or ever achieve any form of virtue because they are never able to completely deprive themselves. Whether they are the religious, who hold the ideal as a God who's definition men cannot understand, and who must sacrifice to get into an existence that cannot be understood, or the Marxist, who demand that one sacrifice to the greater good of society; a society who's definition is - everyone but yourself. The moral men view men's virtues as their struggle for morality and as their struggle for life, and hold virtue and the struggle for life to be the highest coin they have; the Immoral view men's struggle for life as their struggle against morality; and thus demand that need be the highest coin to buy consolidation, rather than virtue

Now, to respond to the first argument, I was not saying that everything done is moral. I said that the pursuit of happiness was the greatest law that could exist when men had to live off the power of their mind; I do not believe I was clear enough. Allow me to amend that statement to more deeply reflect what I mean, the freedom to pursue happiness is the greatest ideal that government could live up to.

What makes a person happy? Those who worship death get an orgy off the death and despair of others, and those who worship life love the wonders of man's mind, the symbols and essence of what keeps man alive on earth.
I do not believe that I was clear enough about the necessity of the other two bases of our government, the protection of property and the protection of life. But the protection of propertyis the protection of life, which is the protection of the ability to pursue happiness, because if your property is stolen from you, if are sacrificed for the fruits of your labor and destroyed because you possess moral values, then you are unable to pursue happiness. It is in the pursuit of happiness that people create property; it is not in the creation of property (or attaining of it) that people attain happiness. It is this reversal which you believe is the fountain of happiness. The government's sole duty is to protect our ability to pursue happiness. You can do anything you wish, as long as what you wish does not violate the pursuit of others' happiness; and if your morals are to view non-existence (i.e. death) as good, then you will pursue your morals to their final end, the grave, and the government will stop you from using the barrel of a gun to support yourself.

In summary, the idea that happiness is subjective is one of the sole principals of those who say that reality is subjective. That a couch that exists, could not exist; or that an argument that is valid, is not valid. That A is non-A (see Ayn Rand, Axiom of Identity). It is not arbitrary to define happiness as the subconscious response to the value of something (the subconscious response to one's own values, as instilled by their conscious or subconscious acceptation of those values), because no other reasonable definition is given. What is your definition of happiness; that happiness makes one joyful? That joy... makes one happy? You evade the question of what happiness is because you are afraid of the answerer; happiness is value. And when you realize that the only thing to which you obtain happiness from is the despair of others, you evade the question by stating that value cannot be defined, and is arbitrary; that happiness cannot be defined, and is arbitrary. I say that when you tell me that happiness cannot be defined, because its viewing and definition changes from person to person, that is arbitrary; because it leads to nothing but the absence of a statement. To state that a concept has no definition, and cannot have a definition, is to state that the concept doesn't exist. If happiness does not exist; then by what measure do we determine what gives us joy, and by what emotional response do we define the value or worth of a concrete or.

The fact is that happiness is the subconscious reaction to what we have defined as valuable, and a moral person experiences it when they see something of value, an immoral person experiences it when they see something that reinforces their morality of death. But the freedom to pursue happiness protects the moral from the immoral; because the moral has no need of immorality; the creator has no need of the brute, or the slave driver, or the moocher. So thus I say again, the freedom to pursue happiness is the highest (and only justice) that government has the right, and the duty, to fulfill. There is no other moral reason for its creation.

Also, Kant has been one of the most treasonous candidates against morality in our modern culture. His views corrupt everything that dictates how man must live in order to be happy, in order to survive.