His disagreement on such a fundamental thing baffles me. Such an argument could only be based on a purposeless existence, which would deny the meaning of sentience. I'm completely with you on this one.

For a while I thought I was going to get booted from this forum for expressing it.

Of course. Altruism reinforces that you are owned by others. Be it, people, state or God.

all the more reason to accept the ethical reality of owning ones self. I would submit that religion has done much to erode the reality of this.

I stick with the description from Stefan Molyneoux. The government is the farmer and we are the livestock. Every single day this point gets reinforced for me. I add that government is run by a few very powerful interests: pharma, banking, perhaps oil, and developers (at the more local level). Everything has become very clear to me upon compiling this view. Mainstream news media plays a vital role in keeping this arrangement glued together, as the citizenry is duped and frightened. It's been an amazing thing to observe, exciting even.

Feel free :)

well said. I am stealing that :)

I would submit that acting is required to enforce that right. Ownership requires action, even if it is nothing more than a statement... I am.

If action is not taken, there is no evidence of self ownership, or even self awareness.

Inaction proves or disproves nothing, it is limbo.

Sadly, the normal state for many.

the O conflict arises out of a description of innate ownership and self-ownership, implying one must act to own elf. I argue that you must act. Peikoff disagrees.

I think a lot of the controversy over this is from the way society has been changing since the mid 60s.

People are social, and that tends to invoke a latent herd instinct. Schools have been pushing that social tendency for all they can. The more they push group, the more they can also push "group think".

If you look at the reports of how much time people spend every day on social media such as facebook, twitter, and instagram, among others. You have to wonder if people are able to function on their own anymore without constant reinforcement from their peers.

My wife and I were in a restaurant having dinner one evening. We looked at a family across the room from us while we were waiting for out food. There were four of them, 2 adults and 2 kids. All four of them were using devices, 3 on phones and 1 on a tablet. Not a one talking to their dinner companions or paying attention to anything but their electronics. Is this what family dinners out have become?

Under Objectivism, we are taught and hopefully realize and internalize, that we own ourselves. Because we own ourselves, we must make our own decisions and make them in our own self interest.

Self interest includes our families, and anyone else we choose of course. But the limits and restrictions on our self interest are decided by us as individuals. Not some nebulous peer group or society as a significant motivator.

This is the opposite of what schools and society at large push for culturally, and is the fracture that produces the controversy.

salta, you have a point

yes, my friend

I was kicked out of an Objectivist forum for this idea

I'm not sure I get why this should be controversial in particularly Objectivist circles. What's the basis of the controversy, 'Who owns me', or is it the development of individual rights from that premise?

I wonder what the response would be 2 years down the road to now.

Typical poorly worded poll question, I assume just to generate this news story.
Both the AS video and the Fox presenter interpreted the result as 88% of people think "govmt SHOULD BE in charge of the people" (entirely different to the actual wording).

Hmmm. Uh, the gubbermeant I'm afraid. >:/