Cat, I am not sure that the three axioms were intended to be taken as deductions of each other. At the same time, I also do not think these are therefore tautologies. Rand's theory of concepts as I understand it is that the person conceptualizing notes similar characteristics in existents and then develops a concept based on those similar characteristics, which differ only in their measurements. Then, these concepts may be defined in terms of their genus and their differentiating factor(s). Existence exists is not an empty set of words, but the actual referents in reality.

"There is something of which I am aware" is not a random linguistic construct, but is formed from derivative concepts denoting something concrete (i.e. there is the pressure of the keys on the keyboard which I feel with my finger tips, there is the glow of the backlighting on the monitor which blurs my sight when I shift my gaze, etc.). Can we imagine a world in which it can be proven that existence does not exist? No. Even dark matter has a name, even if it lacks a well defined identity (i.e. the substance which has mass but does not have other properties which matter has).

I do not think that because existence exists could be a proposal about an infinite number of existents that it means that existence exists actually is a claim about an infinite number of existents. Actual existents are always finite in number. It seems strange therefore to say that a priori knowledge is required to conceive of a posteriori knowledge. That seems to be necessary only when we define the universe as something infinite, rather than finite.

I think you were replying to someone up the chain and not to me.

Really how does that tell you what a property right is? How you can enforce a property rights?

How does it tell you what to do if someone steals from you? Or whether you can shoot someone for trespassing on your land or who has the mineral rights?

"Do unto others as you want them to do unto you is a pretty good one too." Except if a masochist applies this principle, everyone else is in trouble! :-)

she exemplified, far above and beyond us, survival of the fittest.
as a novelist and philosopher, I have not met her match.

and I did not claim that might makes right. . I claimed that
the U.S. has made its own variation on might makes right,
implying that the founders went beyond that principle
in making this country great. -- j
.

The fact that man has free will, a volitional cons-
ciousness; the fact that he must use his mind in
order to survive, and if he is subject to the will of
another he cannot exercise this free will and sur-
vive; and the fact that, in fact, in literal reality, what really, literally exists are individuals, and not
collectives. (As to free will's being debatable,
if man cannot exercise his mind to check what
to know, he can never know if his ideas are
true or false [see Branden in The Objectivist
Newsletter]; and if he cannot know anything,
someone saying he cannot know cannot know
that, either).

Locke and Rand approached this question in different ways, however both are based their argument in reason (logic, evidence and reality). Note the founding fathers were also clear that natural rights were based in reason. This is the opposite of what many libertarians push today.

Locke's argument is based on the idea that if you were alone (in a state of nature) what actions would you be free to take. Perhaps most importantly you have a property right in yourself. In other words you own yourself. From there almost every substantive right can be easily derived. Slavery is illegal (immoral) because it deprives a person of their ownership in themselves, Murder is illegal because it violates their ownership in themselves. Property rights arise from the fact that you own yourself and therefore you own those things you create. This means that theft and burglary are illegal.
Note that both Rand and Locke were clear that that the only right a person gives up to a proper government is the right to retaliatory force. You retain the right to self defense when the danger is clear and present, but not the right to use force to redress a wrong that happened a week ago.
A variation on Locke is that no one has a stronger claim (legal – property right) on your life than you do. Thus you have a property right in your life.

Rand approaches the question from a fundamental nature of man. Namely that man is rational and that reason is man’s basic tool of survival. Since man has to think for himself (we do not think collectively), then he has to have the rights necessary to sustain his life (a political/ethical system that promotes death is a contradiction – see Rand’s discussion of the ‘is ought problem’). This means each man most have sovereignty over his own life. “Is man a sovereign individual who owns his person, his mind, his life, his work and its products …” Ayn Rand, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, p. 10. Thus we see that Rand gets to the same point as Locke, namely that each man owns himself or has self-sovereignty.

Interestingly Leonard Peikoff and many Objectivists have argued against the idea of self ownership. When the do they are arguing against Rand, Locke, and the founding fathers.

BTW: The opposite of self-ownership is slavery. This may be the easiest way to get the point across in a discussion.

Collectivism muddles that a bit. Would a poor individual that voted to progressively loot a weathy individual be following or breaking that Golden Rule? What if this poor individual has been taught that being wealthy, or even personal gain, is bad?

Individual rights are derived from the nature of man. Man is the only specie that has no automatic source of knowledge. Animals live by their senses and perceptions alone, Man has "choice".

Since man has to choose which actions to take to ensure his survival he needs the freedom to do so. The protection of that freedom is the proper function of government. Government needs to recognize the nature of man and respect mans right to take whatever action he deems necessary -- save the initiation of force.

The Founding Fathers identified this fact and proclaimed a constitution based on "unalienable rights".

Ayn Rand's Philosophy -- In a Nutshell - PaulNathan.biz

Are Objectivist concepts "a priori" if not deduced from something?
As a rep of NBI I read the monthly installments of IOE as they came out in the 60's and discussed science with Miss Rand. So be assured you offered no useful insights or advice.
I also had the opportunity to be present for all of Dr. Peikoff's lectures on the writing of OPAR and his concern over the problem of sequence of the derivation of existence, identity, and consciousness which he changed from Miss Rand's sequence. He explained it using the information on observation of his daughter Kira's sequence of acquiring concepts. He explained that the sequence in which one grasps concpets is different from their logical sequence. You may want to reflect on what is a "logical sequence" if it is not deduction. The reason is the problem of getting from an axiom to an empirical statement. The "trick" is in the empirical basis of concepts. If you have read Binswanger, "How We Know" which I read in draft with Harry you know that he contends "consciousness" is an axiom and axioms cannot be defined as they have no genus. So getting from an axiom to an empirical statement about the particular of something is impossible. If I say existence exists and existence is identity those are true by the definition of axioms but cannot be used to differentiated particulars as they apply to all particulars. If you understand why in OPAR Peikoff states metaphysics and epistemology are empirical you will begin to understand the nature of concepts. Remember Miss Rand used "consciousness" only as a term denoting man's consciousness not an abstract platonic universal or axiom. Good luck thinking by deduction about axioms.