My understanding is that there are two general categories of rights, personal and civil/social.

1) Personal Rights: If you were the only person on an island, civil/social rights would have no meaning because they require the interaction of two or more intelligent beings. The number of personal rights and the extent of each right would only be limited by the mental and physical abilities with which you have been endowed by the Creator or nature. As witnessed in the Garden oif Eden, humans have been endowed with the ability to think, to choose and to act. One can choose not to think (zombie sheep?). One can make choices and take actions that are beneficial, harmful or just plain stupid. With the action we take ( the cause), we are accountable and responsible for the result (the effect) whether good or bad. Alone on an island, it is obvious that you could not blame anyone else for a bad choice/ result or force him/her to help you out.

2) Civil/Social Rights: If there were two or more intelligent beings on the island, each individual would have the same types of rights but the extent of each right would be limited by the check and balance of equality. Because all humans have been created equal, even though an individual might have been endowed with superior strength or intelligence, no one has been endowed with superior rights. Man's history of slavery and patriarchy are a result of superior endowed might not superior endowed right. A superior right must exist for one to have the right to infringe on another's personal rights or to control a civil/social right. Because no superior personal rights have been endowed, all civil/social rights and their extent must be determined and agreed to by the mutual consent of all individuals in the group. If someone does not like something about a civil/social right, he/she can remove him/her self from that agreement or group. He/She will not have to conform to the group's control of that right but he/she will not be able to enjoy any group benefits related to the group's exercise of that right. A group has no right to force you to contribute (tax or dues) to a group project but you have no right to enjoy any benefits coming from that project.
What we call the self I believe to be a hybrid made of two parts flesh(DNA software from father and mother) and one part spirit of man from the Creator. Our body was designed in the image of proto-humans and our mind was made in the image of the Creator. Our mind has the potential to be an independent thinking apparatus that processes sensory input and memory experience, knowledge and understanding in real time in order to take pleasure in our life and to choose those actions that will optimize our survival, which can be summed up in the concept of wisdom.

Agreed. I was simply reacting to the post too. Thanks for the info. re. Dr. Peikoff. As you say, more context is needed.
BTW I find dbhalling's posts to be most interesting.

I always do. :-)

Excellent! I am a retired health care professional with 5 successful enterprises under my belt.

But in answer to your post, I guess you win, I cannot "measure up", as I am....

A female Pharmacist.

Well, I would avoid taking this discussion out of context. Peikoff is considered the foremost authority on Objectivism. Again, I can only stress that in this situation, I am merely reacting to the report of another poster's description of a thread involving Dr. Peikoff. I would have to do further investigation before I would verify what was said and under what circumstances. Suffice it to say that *I* believe that we each own our own life and that it can not be otherwise. I am sure there are those who would disagree. One religious poster has already debated that God owns his life. That is not a position I would support, but I have no interest in forcing anyone to believe as I do.

Agreed.

Well, the following is the short version:
Process of elimination demonstrates that no one can possess another human without their consent. Even when subjected to the initiation of force, the "victim" can choose death over slavery. Upon death, the slave owner owns nothing. The "slave" takes his (or her) life to the grave with them.

"Hear, hear”

All day long I have been thinking about how absolutely ridiculous it is that we have a law to stop people from warming up their cars on a cold day unless someone is in the car. It’s not a law that I have ever taken seriously on my private property.

Does this mean that if I don't write my thoughts down I don't own them but if I do then I may (at the Fuhrer Peikoff's discretion of course.)? This fellow Peikoff sounds like an incarnation of Ellsworth M. Toohey.

As a businessman who is retired after owning two successful enterprises, I have no need to swap genital measurements with you. :-) Believe as you wish.

Exactly -- obfuscation if one of the socialists primary weapons. They always cloak their poison in such wordings (I add "Affordable Care Act" to your list above.) Rand does a wonderful job of illustrating this methodology in the character of Ellsworth M. Toohey in The Fountainhead.

The Cambridge dictionary defines the verb To Own as:
"to have something that legally belongs to you: He has owned the business since 1995. The group owns assets worth $620 million. This gave many people the opportunity to own their own home for the first time.
› to accept responsibility for something such as an idea: For the reorganization to work, employees need to own the idea of change."

What definition are you using? Would it differ from that one above? Does you definition include and imply contract? If so, with whom?

What happened to the whole, "Jesus died on the cross" part; the "Turn the other cheek", and so on? Christianity is replete with calls for self-sacrifice.

"self Sacrifice"? Certainly not! The story of Creation includes the richest humans that ever walked the Earth, with the Creators blessings. Solomon, Job, David, et al, had riches beyond compare, because they followed a blueprint to success. Why recreate the wheel, when you have a schematic right in front of you?
I have followed that blueprint. I have managed to create my own Gulch, totally independent of onerous govt regulations and submissions, using technology and the heretofore mentioned blueprint that most of you on this forum can only dream of.

And I did it as a creation of a power far superior than the enemy of Galts Gulch.

As an example, I am fixing to set down to supper after a dip in a hot tub, having a glass of home made wine on a deck covered with snow, and have free range beef on my table lighted by off grid power.

Personally, that give's me value, that I owe to my Creator.

Agreed, I do not normally engage in debates about abortion. However, if a fetus (or an infant or small child for that matter) possesses the RKBA, it is unable to exercise it. We might be able to disagree over at what point that ability ensues, but however one defines human life, it must be the source of rights. There are "conditions" that can mitigate the ability to exercise some human rights. Perhaps the severely retarded individual (for just one other example) would not be able to properly defend their life using arms. However, I believe that there is a significant difference between possessing the ability and being FORCIBLY prohibited from exercising the right by the three branches of a government such as NJ.

While the dead have no use for rights, the same may not be able to be said of "potential life", but as I said, that isn't a debate in which I feel competent to engage.

Have you ever seen that cartoon where the dinosaur with the huge head can't get to his victims because his arms are too short. Well, I have a HUGE screen, but a REALLY tiny font. :-) *NOW* I understand what you were saying. I am going to have to hire Garret Morris from SNL come and do his special brand of "signing" for me. Sorry and YES - I agree. :-) You are correct that it is not "all of a sudden" from the left. I was referring to the fact that one of the other posters mentioned that LEONARD PEIKOFF argued against self-ownership. I did not see the remarks that Dr. Peikoff made in context, but that was the reason for my "shock".

You are, of course, correct that we humans possess the right to use WHATEVER defensive force we deem necessary to maintain our life, liberty and property, and to defend our loved ones.

It was difficult to see that out of context. I will have to get used to the format here. :-) You are absolutely correct. I did not notice that.

The acceptance of an intelligent designer is certainly your prerogative. However, the story of Jesus is a story which celebrates "self-sacrifice". *THAT* has no place in my perception of what gives human beings the ability to be of value.

Socialism is all about slavery. Talk about semantics - stealing is called "distribution of wealth", theft of property is "public domain" and "Agenda 21". Even the theft of our children's minds is disguised in words like "common (obviously a Freudian slip) core".

Frank: You apparently did not notice that my addressing the concept of Granting was something I wrote five years ago. I was posting it and the Supreme’s quote as pointing out that the endless debating of the meaning of the amendment regarding militias is irrelevant as the Amendment simply acknowledges the personal right while addressing the militia situation.

Ah, Frank, I support the Right To Bear Arms, even though I'm not a gun owner (yet).

But I also believe that the assertion of the title statement opens a door you might not want to open...

i.e., "At what EXACT POINT does one begin to Own One's Own Life"?
Obviously, that runs right into the whole Abortion "Rights" 'Discussion,' but without some foundational arguments, definitions or assertions, I'm afraid it can lead to a detour on the way to better gun ownership laws.

Better, maybe, to choose another starting point?
And no, I'm not sure what that 'better point' would be right now...

<<Liberalism,>>> not Libertarianism

“Grant” is false, in interpreting the Amendment as regards the inalienable right to bear arms. What I see the amendment as ‘granting’ is additional rights regarding Militias.

I’m saying to Amendment deniers that if you want to make an issue of what is and isn’t being “granted,” then the people have the right to armament equivalent to that of the government.