Every action an individual takes, to some degree, affects the collective. Every action an individual does, to some degree, wants to be validated by the collective. The herd is an inseparable part of the equation.

Your first claim may well be correct in the general case, but there is really no justification for your second claim. Everyone is to one extent or another subject to the conditions of the time, but how each person chooses to react is up to him. That most choose to remain passive by no means negates their freedom of choice.

Do we want child rapists to have full mastery of themselves? Transexuals who want to use your daughter's locker room? The end result of Nietzscheanism is whoever has the power to enforce their will onto others. But I think we can retain the moral argument by appealing to facts, our desires, and the person's desire to fill obligations to the group (I.E., we could say "Do you really want to use a woman's locker room when every woman in there will feel uncomfortable?). Now, this is still subjective and I still encourage using force against our enemies, but I think this makes us cases more appealing than just saying everything is related to power alone.

You are interpreting what I said in the most materialist and individualist way possible, so you end up missing the point. Nietzsche wasn't some vapid activist promoting "autonomy" in the way people do today. A drug addict certainly retains his autonomy in this sense, since we can say that a drug addict can persist in his destructive ways free of outside interference. From Nietzsche's point of view, the drug addict is still a slave to his addiction. The will to power isn't merely about overcoming the external, it is about overcoming the internal as well. If you are not internally free and in control of all passions and addictions, you are still a slave and lack the will to power.

There are two types of happiness - one that is from the fleeting animalistic desires, and the other more permanent by achieving self-actualization in relation between yourself and society, I.E. your role. You aren't virtuous just because you starve and die in a dangerous land, while the rich aren't bad because they enjoy their wealth as they master the talents of finance that run the country. But some people were made to enjoy the wilds and others to master the stock exchange. Neither would it be good to have one pretend to be the other.

We are dealing with utilitarianism here so virtue is out of the question by definition. The issue is why then should happiness be considered the ultimate good? You avoided answering my question about if you would be willing to sacrifice your happiness to attain a higher goal - I suspect that was because in all likelihood, there is something you consider worthy of that sacrifice. The problem with your response here is that you're again giving undue focus to "relations between the self and society" and social roles, as well as pleasure. Some people who live difficult lives are outcasts and do not have any relations with society, much less a role. This doesn't dissuade them, nor does it make them feel discontent, because they find meaning not just in the easy and pleasant things, but also in the difficult and unpleasant ones. To reduce this to a simple matter of pleasure through self-actualisation ignores the fact that there are many various reasons why one might want to pursue a difficult life. A sense of duty, for example.

The problem with liberals is that they have poor friend-enemy distinction. "Tolerance of everyone, except the intolerant." They'll tolerate any amount of abuse as long as that group is not straight white men. I think this can be helped through understanding of the truth and a development of self-respect, though yes, potential for change is limited.

What's your problem with this if you are a moral subjectivist? They are just applying your principles as they understand them. You can try to persuade them that they are misguided and you have a more correct interpretation, but if they disagree, why should their conduct be considered unreasonable?

As stated, I am a moral subjectivist. But understanding the facts of reality and human nature will lead to better outcomes for what you decide on.

Utilitarianism is based on the 18th century liberal "understanding" that human beings are essentially simple, domesticated, materialistic animals whose lives revolve around the innocent pursuit of "happiness" in the same sense as for example you would see with a dog reacting to being fed steak. Nietzsche referred to these people as "the Last Men" and tended to compare them to cattle.

Nietzsche denies aspects like truth, happiness, and altruism as fundamental elements to the human experience.

Why do you think that? He was critical of the moralism infused in those concepts, but as far as I am aware he never dismissed any of them on their own terms.

Dive fully, and you'll make mistakes that will wind you screwed by your own actions or others, for example, accepting racist radfems into the movement.

This ties in to what I said earlier about the will to power. "Will to power" doesn't mean "I do whatever I want", "will to power" means always struggling to overcome the greatest challenges within the self and outside the self.