"I suppose it all comes down to how we each comprehend "ownership"."

And therein Randy lies the essential reason for all of Mankind's problems; viz. the failure to derive a universally acceptable answer to the question of Who owns what and why? This failure is the very reason that we humans have lurched from one form of dictatorship to another over the centuries. Does the Individual have an absolute right to the productive output of his mind and the distribution of the wealth so created? Or is this right relative to the needs of his fellow humans? The sad truth is that history's greatest group of advocates of Individual Rights, the founding fathers of America, saw property rights as relative to public need (5th Amendment U.S. Constitution). This is the crack in the foundation which has allowed the termites to gnaw away at the supports of our Republic whose collapse becomes more apparent every day.

The coming global dictatorship will produce horrors on a level not even envisioned by Ayn Rand in her Atlas Shrugged.

I agreed (in another comment) with your suggestion that a parent "owns" their child, until adulthood. This, I stated, was due to the fact that I am wholly responsible for that child, until they become responsible for themselves.

If we expanded upon that premise...I would suggest that any man who works and supports himself, owns himself. However, we have many, in our society, who are supported by the government and will not work. These people might be considered as being owned by the government, or am I missing something?

There are many in society who are supported by the government and don't work, but would, if they could. The government could, also, own these people, but for the fact that they will do any kind of job, no matter how inconsequential, to maintain their freedom.

I suppose it all comes down to how we each comprehend "ownership".

Look down my post, to about the 4th paragraph, where I make the remark about our government.

In the scenario you describe, I believe the teacher would own that part of their job...not actually my children, themselves.

So if your child's school takes him on a field trip and the teachers are responsible for his safety, does that also imply the teachers own your child?

Yes, but more than just "education"!

As humans might be owned only by other humans, it's unnessary, and worse, it's horrible!

How about this tact...if I am responsible for something, I own it. Perhaps that was stated in the wrong manner...if I own something, I'm responsible for it. I believe the two statements to be interchangeable.

I was responsible for my children...therefore, I own(ed) them. Now that they are independent, I no longer "own" them.

I am responsible for doing a good job at my place of employment...therefore, I "own" that particular job. Ask yourself...if you are responsible for your work tools and you lose them, wouldn't your employer require you to purchase new ones? Couldn't that be considered "owning" those tools (for awhile)?

Our government is not responsible for us, but they are responsible for our well being...therefore, they "own" that part of the job.

The way I see it...if I'm responsible for another human being, I own that person. Otherwise, why would I accept responsibility for them?

How about this tact...if I am responsible for something, I own it. Perhaps that was stated in the wrong manner...if I own something, I'm responsible for it. I believe the two statements to be interchangeable.

I was responsible for my children...therefore, I own(ed) them. Now that they are independent, I no longer "own" them.

I am responsible for doing a good job at my place of employment...therefore, I "own" that particular job. Ask yourself...if you are responsible for your work tools and you lose them, wouldn't your employer require you to purchase new ones? Couldn't that be considered "owning" those tools (for awhile)?

Our government is not responsible for us, but they are responsible for our well being...therefore, they "own" that part of the job.

The way I see it...if I'm responsible for another human being, I own that person. Otherwise, why would I accept responsibility for them?

It does bother me that I write checks to pay "taxes assessed" in order not to go to jail or have more of my property stolen. By paying them, I make them stronger and I tell them that its ok to take from me.

Ah yes. In Atlas Shrugged Part II The Sanction of the victim, Rand discusses this aspect of human behavior.

Could you expand on "realm of innate -ness"?

+1 Does Plato's Republic come to mind?

Not sure people have control over themselves even. BUT, that said there shouldnt be unilateral control of one person by another unless the victim agrees to be controlled.

The main requirement for entering into a contract is attainment of legal age and certifiable ownership of whatever you are selling. How would self-ownership be demonstrated philosophically or legally?

Thanks, you've answered my questions.

No, it is only an "assessment" of YOURSELF.

+1 Lucky. Each man is or ought to be his own sovereign.

I agree. The central issue is whether the individual should have the right to absolute control of himself and the distribution of his productive output, or, if this control should be shared or allocated with his fellow men and their agencies.
I choose the former.

In your words: "YOU need to determine whether or not YOUR IQ is higher than the people whom you consider to be slaves."

Is that not a judgment of other people?

There is no such thing as judgement of other people. That is a low IQ way of thinking. Only slaves judge other people or consider that some people are superior to other people. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Or, the actual reality demonstrates itself like with the physics principle of cause and effect.

It is your own IQ or lack thereof that will enslave you, no one else. There is no such thing as "class" of people, that is an "Illusionary Construct" as mentioned in "The Matrix."

Agreed

To own is to be responsible for and in control of. If we choose not to own ourselves, we choose to allows others to do so. To choose neither is to choose a life of absolutely zero action whatsoever.

So ... if one considers everyone around them to be their intellectual inferior, and therefore their slave, they have revealed to themselves that they have an exceptionally high IQ?

Or is a more likely scenario that they are delusional?

She and I have agreed to disagree on many topics. I still refuse to get cable as well.