Through its win-win approach, Healing Our World illustrates how the rules of social interaction which we learned as children hold the secret to universal harmony and abundance.
Ruwart introduces the groundwork of the non-aggression axiom with less attention on natural rights and private property arguments and more on accessible, plain moral reasoning that is pretty much unassailable. She then introduces the reader to the consequences of aggression, particularly the government's aggression, on society. The government's use of aggression disrupts free interaction between people and thus makes us worse off. As Scott Ryan says below, she shows that liberty is a win-win situation.
Like Rothbard, she mounts a compelling case on numerous issues: Pollution, monopoly, war, foreign policy, welfare, courts, business regulation, minimum wage, police, et cetera et cetera. Her examination of education doesn't give much attention to the actual fact of the State influencing children but focuses on private schooling solutions.
Older versions of _For a New Liberty_ lacked a discussion of one of the most dangerous powers of the State: control over the (fiat) money supply. Ruwart explains fractional reserve banking, the consequences of a central banking system in a way that is _very_ easy to understand.
_For a New Liberty_ has nothing specifically about healthcare. Ruwart fortunately explores two government elements very detrimental to our health: the Food & Drug Administration and licensing/regulation of health care services.
She also expands on some out the arguments Rothbard made briefly in his chapter "Personal Liberty". For one, she looks at armed citizens and the effect of right-to-carry laws on crime rates (citing lots of Bruce Benson's important work). Her chapter on illegal drugs is definitive, showing plainly that creating a black market for drugs is worse than the drugs themselves.
The book mounts a consistent case with nary a concession given to government. Therefore, she makes an anarchocapitalist case without saying she is an anarchist (although she says she is in her libertarian autobiography over at Lew Rockwell's site).
Ruwart does not involve herself much in an "anatomy of the State" (pun intended of course) and its very nature being immoral and criminal, although the overtone is obviously there. The State does bad things and is therefore bad, but the book is about the effects on those things and not the fact that the State is bad. If that makes sense. I think it does.
And, perhaps as a corollary of that Ruwart's overall tone is very accessible and positive. For this reason, she seems more likely than anyone I can think of to prevail on skeptics, whether they are "conservative" or "liberal" (as Ruwart herself once was -- might not impress cold-hearted neo-cons though. Marxists are very deluded too).
And it's really beautifully written and essential for all good people. this review is getting way too long, but I think you should buy it.
Her philosophy should be of great interest to both liberals and conservatives as I believe it can achieve the ultimate objectives of both sides of the political spectrum: peace, freedom, and prosperity. Or if you currently find yourself politically homeless, with your beliefs not fitting either label, you just may find in here a philosophy that fits your convictions.
Besides all that, "Healing Our World" is an easy and enjoyable read, with just enough historical references to illustrate the author's points without getting tedious. And I liked all the great quotations in the margins (from Julius Ceasar to Lao-tsu to Ann Landers).