Oh, so you have the same moral compass as a cannibal who doesn't have any moral objection to killing and eating humans who are not part of his tribe? His moral compass tells him that this is not wrong.
Perhaps you have the same moral compass as a deranged serial rapist who honestly and wholeheartedly believes that he is "purifying" his victims. His moral compass is definitely skewed, but it doesn't tell him that what he's doing is wrong.
Perhaps instead that you are saying that your ideas of right and wrong are universal and absolute and therefore you know morally what is right in all cases. That would contradict some of your earlier statements, but so be it. What if I, using my own moral compass disagree with you?

By the way, in another post, you mentioned (and supported) moral relativism. Moral relativism pretty much says that there are no absolutes and that therefore all moral viewpoints are acceptable which means that there is no such thing as a moral compass (or at least that the compass changes direction). I disagree with this philosophy, but many follow it. A moral relativist may tell you that it is acceptable to kill 1,000 people to save 1,000,000 people. Another moral relativist might tell you just the opposite, that the 1,000 people's lives are too valuable to waste, even when the save 1,000,000 people and that another solution must be found. Slavery in the United States was considered by moral relativists to be acceptable in the 1840s. Today, moral relativists would tell you that slavery is completely unacceptable.

In short, moral relativism is no moral compass at all.

Collectivism is another word for soviet communism. The idea that "the people" should own the means of production of products. Since "the people" would need to be represented by a government in such a system (because it is unworkable to ask hundreds of millions of people on every decision), you end up with government owning the means of production. History has shown that such a system doesn't work unless everyone is 100% honest and there is no corruption. As of yet, we haven't seen any human system where this is the case. Further, inherent in such a system is that there is no incentive for doing exceptional work. There's no way to better one's life. For that matter, there's no incentive for even doing one's own minimum level of work. After, all, if the government owns all production, then everyone is employed by government, and if that is the case, then nobody can be fired from the government without disenfranchising them. Disenfranchisement goes against the whole idea of collectivism.

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan