It is written by Timothy Sandefur, Attorney and author of "Cornerstone of Liberty: Property Rights in 21st Century America" (Cato Institute, 2006). He has published more than 25 scholarly articles, which have appeared in such publications as the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy and the Michigan State Law Review. In Februrary, 2006, he was featured on the cover of California Lawyer magazine.

He is also a contributing editor of Liberty magazine, and has written for many other publications as well, including The Claremont Review of Books, The Independent Review, The Humanist, The Washington Times, and The Orange County Register. His writing has won a number of awards, including the George Washington Honor Medal (The Freedoms Foundation), the Felix Morley Journalism Competition (Institute for Humane Studies), the Madison-Maibach Award (Center for the Study of the Presidency), a Ronald Reagan Medal (Claremont Institute) and first place in the Americans United for Separation of Church And State essay competition. He was a 2002 Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute, and holds Chapman's prestigious Dean's Professionalism Award.

I can see a need for the government to step in when it comes to disease outbreaks. Much like the need for the government in the event of a forrest fire. If that were the only aspect of your suggested "Universal health Care" we'd be fine. But you go a step further and demand that I help pay for things that only affect specific individuals.

Again, there is a straightforward argument from self-interest that can be applied here. Even if you secure health insurance for yourself, you obviously have an interest in paying as little as possible. By far the most effective way to do that is to pool as many people as possible - preferably, all of society - into that same health insurance plan. That distributes the risk among as many paying customers as possible, and therefore lowers your premiums. Do you agree that, from a libertarian standpoint, this is desirable?

three billion people live in extreme poverty, earning the equivalent of two dollars a day or less

To be fair, the definition of extreme poverty is $1 a day (in purchase power parity dollars). The portion of the world's population in that group has actually been cut in half in the last couple years. $2 PPP a day is still very, very bad poverty, but not the accepted definition of extreme. The most crucial factor to extreme poverty are diseases such as AIDS and malaria... not lack of food. The hurdles facing $2 a day poverty levels tend to be different, which is why economists separate the groups.

The link you gave us provides some potential misleading statistics, such as the declining growth rates of 3rd world country economies. It has to be understood that they're counting the Asian Miracle economies and similar 3rd world countries who experienced extremely fast growth until they reached closer to 1st world standards and leveled off. What's missing from the conclusion that "growth is slowing" is the fact that the other 3rd world countries didn't grow at all during the same decades. There are at least a dozen economic to what is required to actually launch those 3rd world countries into sustained growth and just as many theories about why none of those theories have worked. And those theories are nothing new - some of them have been turned into policies by both local governments and international banks that have contributed to the lack of growth, in addition to wars, corruption, etc. And it's not just Western capitalist policies that have lead to blame - eastern Socialist countries have had just as big a share of bad policies. I.e. look at Kenya, which was ultimately a failed socialist developmental experiment.

On the contrary Ebon, the Objectivist Ethics recognises that human beings do not live in emergency situations. We are not faced with life or death struggles everyday - this is simply not the case.

Friend, I say this with all sincerity: What planet are you living on?

Whichever one it is, it doesn't seem to be Earth. On Earth, an average of 30,000 children die each day from malnutrition and treatable disease. Nearly 800 million more people are chronically hungry. And nearly three billion people live in extreme poverty, earning the equivalent of two dollars a day or less.

By your own definition, Objectivism does not apply to "lifeboat scenarios", and thus is utterly incapable of providing any guidance or advice when it comes to the daily lives of something like half the people on this planet. What you need to recognize is that the living conditions which we citizens of the First World enjoy are not the norm; they are the exception. For nearly all people throughout history, and for the most part still today, human life is nasty, brutish and short, and millions of people's everyday decisions absolutely are driven by necessity and desperation. By your argument, Objectivism is useless in such situations. Thus I conclude that we need to turn to a different ethical system when we're faced with these dilemmas, one that actually takes reality into account and doesn't blithely dismiss the suffering of one-half of humanity as an irrelevant special case.

I also must again point out that I laid out a libertarian, self-interest-based argument for universal health care in my previous comment. I specifically asked anyone who takes issue with my position to respond to that argument and show where the fallacy is. Ergo and Evanescent have both declined to do so. (Curiosis, on the other hand, seems to have conceded the point.)

First of all, taxation is no different to breaking into somebody's house. The difference is that a man with a government badge does it.

I smile every time I hear a Libertarian make a statement that's tantamount to the "government is a thief" idea, such as this one. It demonstrates that they understand little - if anything - about representative government and civil law.

Imagine someone buying the roads surrounding your house. You then cannot leave it without trespassing on the road owner's property. Thus, a coercive monopoly.

One word: easement.

In fact, property rights are based on coercion; anyone who screams "I have a right to defend my property" is claiming the legitimacy of coercion for that purpose.

By this logic self-defense is murder.

That would not be apparent when one sees all the spiteful, hostile rhetoric directed by libertarians and Randians at those that they consider losers.

You're right. I have no respect for someone who is capable of being self-sufficient but simply chooses not to. Find me an example of "spiteful, hostile rhetoric" by libertarians and Randians about people who have simply had a bad break.

But I don't see such people donating hundreds of millions of dollars to the US Libertarian Party and similar large sums to similar parties elsewhere in the world. Instead, they often donate to more statist parties. Why might that be?

Because in the US, where the government has their fingers in everyone's pie, if you want to get ahead, you have to have leverage with those in power. In an free society, there would be no need for greasing the government because the government would be impotent to special interests.

But morality cannot be policed!

I bet the police think otherwise.

The police only affect actions. You don't make someone moral by arresting them. You dont make some charitable by forcing them to pay taxes.

Rational men decided taxation was a good idea, and if they decide that a social safety net is also a good idea, then I don't see the debate. If you don't like the conclusion they come to, you can either work to change people's opinions or find somewhere else to live. Sound harsh? Well if you feel that it's not in your rational self-interests to live in a country that taxes, move somewhere that doesn't.

So rational men made decisions for you? I'm suggesting that we all make decisions for ourselves. Why is that such a terrible idea?

Oh, boy. "Love it or leave it" again.

What a crock. There are plenty of people in the US who are facing scenerios like revolve around their own life and death and countless people throughout the world that are Starving or too poor to support themselves. Trying to deny that this is the case is ludicrous.

So then we should follow Ebon's advice and apply it to the real world. All these starving and poor people now have the right to take from others whatever they need to survive. They can come in your house and raid your fridge.

But of course you probably don't like that solution. So instead you hide the solution by having the government do this for them.

And who has full knowledge of the facts? Do you understand how your existance effects not just those in your general area but people in the country and world as well? How about how many externalities you create, and what the real price of your lifestyle is?

You talk as if the very act of having money harms people. There is not a finite supply of wealth.

I feel quality of life is more important than quantity of life. There has to be a balance between the two.

And you should be free to persue that balance. The problem is that you want to force everyone to have the same balance. You have figured out what works for you and now want to share that with the world, even if you have to use police power to make it happen.

Like should be a buffet, where we can all choose what we like and what works well for us. If you decide that PB&Js are the best, that won't work for me. I don't like them. It would kill my son. He's allergic.

How about you eat what you like, I'll eat what I like, and neither of us will force the other?

But therein lies the rub, if I can think of a good reason to deprive myself of property, why can't I then apply those principles to others, and ask them to do the same.

You can. Most of do ask others to be kind and understanding. What I'm suggesting is that you shouldn't use the police power of the state to make others be nice.

If it was right for me to do, why would I allow someone else not to do so without consequences.

The important word here is "allow." You can't allow or disallow someone else to do what they want with their property. Even if your are certain that you have a better use for it.

If my friend had owned the cabin, it wouldn't be a stretch to tell him, "Hey, don't be a dick about it. The guy would have died, and there's no reason to press charges."

I would say the same thing. Peer pressure is a perfectly legal means to change someone's behavior.

I would feel that him pressing charges was wrong, as wrong as murder or fraud or other crimes.

So expecting others not to damage or steal your property is the same as murder or fraud? Also, bear in mind that we have a justice system, judges and juries, to decide these cases. Most likey the case would be dismissed if the hiker agreed to pay for the damage.

If we feel that it's wrong, we should structure society to prevent or punish such actions just like we do with fraud and murder.

I've heard this argument before. Christians use it all the time about homosexuality and blasphemy. Just because you feel something is wrong, that is not, by itself, a good enough reason to prohibit it. You must first show how the action is an initial use of force against someone's person or property.

I don't understand this. How is it that you can't see the distinction between the two? When a burglar robs you he or she may take everything according to their whims or ability, while taxation only takes a controlled portion. Indeed, taxation could have the same effect, but it is logically possible that it won't and does not.

If I told you that last year that I found 1000 dollars, but someone took half of it from me, you'd probably commiserate with me over the injustice of it. Why would your attitude change if I tell you that it was the US government that took that half? Why does that suddenly make it okay?

One does not need an indefinite amount of property to maintain their life. The two are not inextricable.

Then please tell us what the limit is. $50,000? $100,000? A million? How do you determine when someone has too much money?

Since the poor aren't under regular medical supervision, any new infectious disease that appears will be likely to flourish among them. By the time it spreads out of the have-nots and begins to infect the rest of society, it may have become far more virulent and dangerous, putting many more people at risk. On the other hand, if an epidemic is detected early, it is far easier to stop it. This is not a hypothetical scenario: we see it happening around the world right now with diseases like tuberculosis or avian flu, where virulent, drug-resistant strains emerge first among society's underclass.

I can see a need for the government to step in when it comes to disease outbreaks. Much like the need for the government in the event of a forrest fire. If that were the only aspect of your suggested "Universal health Care" we'd be fine. But you go a step further and demand that I help pay for things that only affect specific individuals. That I help pay for the cancer treatments for life-long smokers.

You see someone in need and then reach into someone else's pocket for the money to address it. Your compassion is noble; it's your methods that suck.