I hold the same view (even if they do affect me so long as "affect" does not constitute "force".)

Re. the last paragraph "What we call the self ..." -- the question that comes to my mind is: How do we detect the "mind" as distinct from the "DNA software ..."? The physical evidence so far indicates that they are inseparable.

I am curious as to why you qualified "property" with the word vital? The reason I ask is that I would not have.

If you feel like meeting, I'll be glad to be your tour guide and bring you to our favorite Greek restaurant, which by the way, has a bakery on premises that every time I go there I need to be restrained from buying out the store. You can reach me at herb@thecrank.com

If a person wishes to hold reverence for a God in their mind, that is certainly their prerogative. I cannot justify it for myself. As you said, as long as their beliefs do not affect me, they are welcome to have them.

As well you should. I envy you that, BUT... it gives me something worthwhile to fight for. :-)

I suppose I could go with "Your rights just are". But I like my idea better. :-)

Does it not occur to you to wonder where "He" came from? I choose a different premise: The "universe" exists and has always existed. I cannot "prove" that this is the case but the physical evidence weighs heavily in favor of it. In any case, so long as one does not inflict or attempt to inflict their views on me I will not retaliate.

The story of Christianity is that "Jesus dies on the cross for *OUR* sins". John Galt was willing to die RATHER than to be USED as a sacrificial animal.

I do not believe in God, and I certainly do not give ownership of my life to an unidentifiable entity whom I shall meet ONLY after I am dead. To me, that is not rational. I respect others right to believe as they wish, but the existence of GOD cannot be proven and must be accepted on faith alone. I have a mind that demands more than that.

I have seen that. It makes a point. :-)

Why is that?

Thanks very much.

You are spot on. The 2A exists as a protection of the PEOPLE against the government.

I don't believe in God or Equality. I believe that Nature "happens" and that the mind of man can shape Nature to a certain extent. The right that individuals have in a social setting is the right NOT to have the initiation of force exerted upon them. They *DO* have the right to implement force in defense of life and vital property.

well, FJF, I am in tennessee and love the freedom
which we share here;; welcome! -- j

Dr. Peikoff was not part of the discussion. People were reacting to this concept of self ownership based on a lecture he gave on the same. He rejects the concept. Your rights just are. His analysis was not Rand's from anything I could find.

I think Jesus is an example of "self-sacrifice" in the same sense that John Galt was. They were both wiling to die for their own personal beliefs, their own versions of what is true and right and moral. In other words, they were wiling to sacrifice themselves, rather than renounce their views of the world and live by others' values. Jesus defied both the religious and political establishment of his day, which was what got him killed.

In addition, Ayn Rand stated that Jesus was significant because he was one of the first to say that the individual has value. http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/texts/jesus... And there are clear parallels between the stories of Jesus and Galt, suggesting that the latter was based on the former. http://www.christianpost.com/news/ayn-ra...

Something that has always remained constant in my mind since learning it, and the concept was resonating around in there before I could ever speak, and before I ever learned that these words existed:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

This for me holds so much weight on my ideology, transcending sex, age, gender, religion, et cetera. Without holding these dear, and truly believing in these truths to be absolute fact; that my friends, that is where the governments go wayward, this is where the lazy become entitled, and this is where the sacrifice of freedom for security begins to decay the fabric of thought. It is for these ideals that the Constitution has the protections it does. Though the swiss cheese that it has become is for another topic... To hold the individual freedom to live your life as you see fit; to find your happiness wherever that may land, for each and everyone that lives, regardless of if we agree with their decision or not, is none of our concern. The only atrocity that we as people should ever take issue with, and hold violators accountable for; is when it/they/their policies infringe upon another's personal freedom to pursue their life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness.

Our life is a God given gift. A gift to each individual person. These lives are not public property. If anyone's property, it is God's..

Human rights arise from our being intelligent beings and therefore superior to any others. If there's a creator then I defy him to prove that he is similarly superior to us.

Supposedly a sign in a man’s front yard.

“My neighbor does not believe in the second amendment. I do.”

I find that an oversimplification, one probably intended to have anti-liberty uses (such as on the abortion issue).

I already see much more heat than light in this thread, and I expect it only to get worse.

I would guess that bearing arms prior to the second amendment would be as natural as wearing shoes. I've always believed that the second amendments prime reason is to protect the people from the government. Taken that, would our military stand against the general population? I honestly do not know. It's a hard question.

Himself. No one else was around.