Wouldn't this really just come back to actionability or agency - the ability to decide one's future? Call it sentience if you wish - the principle that one can identify one's self independent from one's environment. That in and of itself creates a boundary of self vs environment and lays the first claim on "ownership", which is nothing more than identification of segregation and responsibility. When one identifies one's self, it is to recognize one's own physical boundaries and the responsibility for what lies within those boundaries.

To me, everything else follows after that. Right to life is simply the acknowledgement or claim that a violation of the physical boundary occupied by you, the individual, is unacceptable and an attempted abrogation of one's own identity. It is an attempt at theft, really - the control of something not under one's responsibility.

Objects without conscience and will do not recognize the concept of either their own boundaries or those around them, and so can not be "owners" of anything. They also can not be responsible.

What say ye?

Well said.

Say you are on a deserted island. There is a cow. The cow has the attribute of being un -owned. However, if you coax the cow into a makeshift pen that you build and feed and milk the cow - it has now become owned - by you. Right to life doesn 't get you much. But it 's also not an attribute. However, owning oneself is an attribute. Metaphysics. Land can 't own itself, nor rocks nor trees. Only a man may own himself. He takes action to do so by creating property.

I, and I alone, am the boss of me.

The phrase "I own myself" is not recursive, and it does not imply that "I" and "myself" have to be separate entities.
It is simply a clear shorthand way of stating that no OTHER person (or collective) can own me.

This is interesting. I put into my self-spoonfeeding notation in which "-->" means implies.

You're saying:
You're a rational animal --> you own yourself --> right to life. Saying rational animal --> right to life seems mystical and is skipping a necessary step.

Why does un-owned --> own-able?

Why is rational animal --> right to life more mystical than ration animal --> you own yourself?

kh: Sorry to hear about the kick-out, I don't do social media. It's too subject to other's conceptions and wills. I just don't do other's rules or interpretations of those rules.
I can't agree that the right to life has anything to do with god-given and I certainly don't wish to imply anything of the sort--life in general is a part of reality (there is even a school of thought that describes life's purpose to be that of giving reality form and even directing it at a point). In my way of thinking, there's no I or self without life-my life. Wherever that life derives from, for myself it derives from nature (maybe an ambiguous term or identity) of which I'm a part, a natural development of the more general grouping of 'life'.
But regardless, once I exist or my consciousness or self awareness develops to a certain point, I'm here. (I'm not ready yet to describe thinking about existence and reality-that's another level of mumbling in me at this point)
What can I do as a part of nature, or reality? Nothing unless I live.
How then can I live? The life of me requires certain things in order to continue to exist and my ways and means to obtain and use those things is my perceptions and rational thinking.
I have my mind and it has the ability to rationally perceive, remember, and think. Because I have that mind and self awareness, I'm different from the other animal life of this reality.

Sorry, I have to pause this for awhile. I'll return to it and you later.

" I look at it as derived from my right to life." I don't see how the rest follows if you start with the right to life. If you start with the fact that you are a rational animal and derive the right to life, you will also derive the fact that you own yourself, which encompasses the right to life (not the other way around). This then provides a much stronger basis for understanding all property rights, contracts, common law, criminal law. The way property works is threefold. 1. owned by me 2. owned by others 3. un-owned (which implies they are own-able) So, if you do not say you own yourself, you are own-able. To say nakedly that you have the right to life is like saying your rights are god-given. it's sort of mystical. to your other point about self awareness. It is not the same as making a moral claim. Whether you are aware you own yourself or not, you still do morally and ethically. btw, I got kicked out of a FB group yesterday for trying to have this conversation and disagreeing with LP. heresy! and then, someone I'm friends with who I really don't know-they kicked him out for being my friend. don't ya love social media. but I knew I would have a great discussion in here and that it would be civil and we would take each other seriously.

ownership implies that no one else has a better claim on your life than you do. and therefore consistent with other's ownership of their own life. A problem with the right to life concept is that it does not tell you where property rights come from, how they are created. It doesn't tell you about theft or slavery-no direct contact to any of those issues. Ownership in one's self implies all of that-no social contact needed (practical point of view). Robinson Crusoe still owns certain things and not others. As well, Peikoff's argument directly contradicts Rand. see above-without rights in property-there is no right to yourself(paraphrasing-restating).

I don't see how you can have a human man without relationships with something through his senses and his mind to receive and interpret that input. As to self ownership and property rights, I look at it as derived from my right to life. The only thing that still muddles my thinking on it is that self ownership and property rights have to be exercised and until the mind is developed to some level, it can't be exercised. So then, does the right exist before that development level is reached?

Before we can discuss this subject further, we need to define the sense in which we are using the word "own". Ones own self is an expression of individuality which differentiates the user of that term from every other human on Earth. It in no way implies "ownership" in a possessive or commercial sense, such as ones own car would. The moment of realization that one has the right to ones own life is the absolute beginning of individuality - that one has an existence separate from the group. LP was correct. So k, how did you the word "own" in the above paragraph.