Carlton, that all makes 100% sense unless I am a government leader, or king that conscripts you to fight to maintain my (or our collective) property. Then I have taken control of your body for my purpose. Does a government have a moral obligation to protect its citizens, and force you against your will to die for your country (or the kings throne)? I am also taxed to maintain the governments ability to defend our nation and few (there is a small minority that disagrees) would argue that there is not a moral obligation to do that. Again, it comes down to who decides what is moral. The true libertarian may find it repugnant that they must support the government in any sense, where as others see an unearned benefit the Amish acquire living in a country that is a world power and able to keep them safe (they would be easily overrun if they were their own nation). Is it moral for them to enjoy a peace maintained by others? There are those who feel it is morally acceptable to kill their neighbor because "they have more than they need while my family starves." That has been then reason for many wars between nations over resources to save their populations or deter another from reaching a level of threatening power. Life and property is always at stake and subject to someones moral view that may be 180 degrees from anothers. My argument is not contrary to yours as much as questioning how one set of human derived morals is superior to anothers. (I maintain only Gods laws and morals are superior and that we and yes, Hitchins - benefit from a world that has had those laws revealed to us).

Keeping on my theme, Im curious Carlton where moral law and property rights intertwine. When one considers property is owned by one person or group of persons and is often taken away by others, only to be taken away by someone else. Does someone have an original moral claim on property? How is it established, or who decides who has the moral right to something above and beyond might makes right? What is the origin of this property rights as the basis for moral law?

I am absolutely not saying that an atheist cannot be moral. I am stating that his morals are not superior or inferior to anyone elses unless you establish a justification for morality on something other than my or his opinion. No human based system is superior to or more defensible than anothers. I believe Hitchins would agree with that.