Manx

Your goal of protection of the rights of others is hindered by the consignment of power into the hands of the few. Ergo, your goal is dependent on my goal. If my goal fails, your goal is impossible.
Could there be a more generic description? Universal health care is a defense of individual rights by virtue of privatized health care removing the opportunity for health care form the majority and placing it more and more into the hands of the select few wealthy.
Earned is not the appropriate word. Acquired is much more fitting as it does not presume that the value was righteous simply because it was obtained. So - if the question is: Why should people be entitled to that which they have not acquired? The answer is: give it to them and they have now acquired it.

Earning requires a judgement that neither you, nor I, as individuals are capable of meting. For every doctor who has worked hard to learn information that is valuable to society, there is a mutual fund manager who does little more than evaluate growth in numbers, or there is an heir, or a celebrity. Having money does not automatically mean you deserve money. Having money does not automatically mean you worked hard. Having money does not automatically mean you are contributing to society.
See above where I discuss the lack of connection between money and value. And then add to that the reality that people are not born equal and then left to prosper or fail. Most people do not have the opportunity to become doctors, lawyers or physicists. Those who do have that opportunity are lucky. Luck is not something that is earned or deserved, it just is.
And back to the generic concept of individual rights. If people are not afforded the same opportunities as a select few others, it is evident that their individual rights are being infringed. Government is indeed supposed to protect individual rights - and by assisting those people who are not as lucky, priviledged at birth, as the select few, government is protecting their individual rights.
Other than my disagreement of your analysis, I say good.
Since I did not claim other people were removing the upper class, my description of the book was accurate. I have read the book. I have read The Fountainhead, it seems evident to me which one is a farce and which one has value to the individual.
Now you're leaning far too much on We The Living. We could have a long discussion about Ayn Rand, but, even though The Fountainhead is a book I find invaluable, her vastly misinterpreted history (or atleast, the misinterpretation of her readers) essentially prevents me from taking any such discussion seriously. In regards to your claim that a class of people has fled due specifically to constraints placed upon them, this is simply not how things went down. The monarchy of pre-Communist Russia was attacked, not because they were successful but because they were a tyranny over the masses. They were not the sole providers of innovation or intelligence - they were simply the lucky few to have been born into the ruling class. They did not attain their positions by virtue of knowledge, skill, experience or capability, and when the monarchy was gone, those things were not missing from society.
You have listed the precise aspects of society that benefit the poor and then suggested that removing them would harm the poor more than the rich. Obviously so. But those are not the only aspects of society that benefit people. Society is of benefit to the rich by allowing them to own things. Society is of benefit to the rich by allowing them to control communication. Society is of benefit to the rich by allowing them to control the potential choices of the poor. Without ownership, the rich become the poor. Without control of communication, the rich cannot control the choices of the poor. Without control, the rich lose power to mold society as they desire.

So who needs society more? Now take away the public schools, make health care even harder for the poor to attain, take away the libraries and welfare - as you are suggesting. Now the poor don't need society at all but the rich continue to require it to protect their ownership and their control. Now you have a tyranny. How long do you think it will last? Hopefully before we get to that stage you'll learn that even poor people are intelligent, innovative and capable of producing and greatly benefitting society - they were simply not born into the opportunity to achieve those things. And when the tyranny is destroyed and the upper class vanquished - do you honestly think there will be no more achievement of excellence in society? Access to money does not correlate to capability.
Doesn't matter, I decided to let you have your cake and eat it too.