You cannot waive that which is inherent to the type of being you are. You cannot waive reality. You can choose to ignore it though not without consequences.

You lost me at "endowed."
Endowed by whom? A Supreme Being?
If not, by who else?! Society? Government? Your next-door neighbor?!

When you participate in a community or society or culture, you get the benefits of any and all rights that the group agrees to 'confer on you.'

THAT is the source, if any, of any 'rights' you enjoy. If the culture 'changes its mind and you object, you can try to 'change their minds back' but if you're not successful, their Consensus And Agreement trumps your views and Your Rights Have Been Changed!

What puzzles me is that so many folks here can't Get That Point.

I believe that Rand, for all your quoting, is probably only right in the context of the 'guy alone on the desert island' as far as what Rights He's Got, but as soon as there are two or more humans interacting, it's all by Agreement that "Rights" are established.

But hey, WTF do I know? I'm just an engineer who likes to ask questions... whether I get answers or not.

Cheers!... now back to your regularly-scheduled programming...

You do not "consent", by the mere fact of your
birth, and continuing to live in the country, to being
conscripted into servitude.

The government can and does do wrong. It
constantly violates man's rights, which are a part
of man's nature. The ones who vote that s--t in are
responsible for violating their fellow-beings' rights,
as, for instance, those voters who repeatedly
voted FDR in over and over.

The clown who "voted" this down should realize that this is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism. It is not a place for militant dogmatists who denounce Ayn Rand's philosophy for rejecting an anti-intellectual religious conservative 'narrative'. Ayn Rand supported a free society based on the rights of the individual and was neither a political liberal nor conservative; as an advocate of reason she rejected all forms of the supernatural.

This, like your other repetitive posts on this topic, is strained rationalization.

Christianity is absolutely not the moral foundation of this country. Christian morality calls for duty, other worldliness, mystic preoccupation with the supernatural, and sacrifice to others for the sake of another world -- all the diametric opposite of a country founded on the Enlightenment principles of reason, individualism, and the right of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of one's own happiness here on earth.

See further the posts https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... and https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... on this page.

The notion that the adoption of the Constitution did not displace or supersede the Articles of Confederation and the even earlier Continental Congresses in setting up a new government is historically absurd. You have been had. The website you referred to further pushes the absurd notions that there is a "declaration in American law of the simple, fundamental belief in a Supreme Creator" and "Acceptance of God as Our King". How can anyone say or cite that with a straight face?

It is trying to rationalize a false religious conservative 'narrative' promoting a revisionist history, attributing the founding of the country to religion and proselytizing for a revival of mysticism and theocracy. That 'narrative' is ignorant of the Enlightenment in its largely rejecting the previously prevailing primitivist religious beliefs, the intellectual role of the Enlightenment in the founding of this country, and the fundamental difference between the Christian dogmas and the nature of this country. Primitive mysticism as the founding of this country is not only historically false, it would be impossible.

have we not bridled the nsa? . a little? -- j
.

There are no innate ideas and in particular no innate belief in self sacrifice as a goal. Nor is self-sacrificial altruism a requirement for living, either one's own individual life or peacefully in society; it makes it impossible when consistently practiced.

People incorrectly ascribe altruistic self-sacrifice as the meaning of morality because that is what they have been taught to believe by thousands of years of religion and philosophy, leaving people with no moral guidance in their personal lives and causing destruction and resentment within any society that tries to practice altruism. Sacrifice of oneself to others versus sacrificing others to oneself, both of which are commonly practiced, is a false alternative.

Despite the altruist preaching, in the more successful, civilized societies people have figured out on their own not to try live that way, at least consistently, such as the Enlightenment implicitly endorsing individualism under the principle of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of one's own happiness here on earth. But it is undermined by the explicit, false principles accepted as morality and that, along with the undermining of reason, is why we are losing the countryf to statism and collectivism and their consequences. Very few philosophers have advocated or attempted a consistent rational egoism rejecting the false alternatives of who sacrifices to whom. See Leonard Peikoff's book The Ominous Parallels.

If you are attracted to the sense of life of Atlas Shrugged you should learn what Ayn Rand's philosophy is in contrast to the conventional slogans. The ethics is explained in The Virtue of Selfishness, beginning in the first chapter, "The Objectivist Ethics*.

now, Michael, the patriot act was a knee-jerk reaction
to a horrible event. . we are growing up gradually, in this fight. -- j
.

The leftists (most all of congress) voting and signing the bill on 12 /31/2015 are a disgrace to our nation.

But aside from formal ethics, political philospohies and metaphysics, don't you think homo sapiens has any innate cooperative, or dare I say, altruistic tendencies? The vast majority of human beings live unexamined lives, yet somehow manage to live in cities of millions, piled on top of one another, with amazingly nominal levels of crime, considering the population density. Aside from a small percentage of sociopathic mutations, the golden rule seems to be far more prevalent than it should be, if we weren't born with an inherent, native morality. This is the "ethics" to which I refer, the sense that we own ourselves being a natural result of our nature.

Well, when I was at the Federal Records depository and opened the first volume of the Statutes at Large, it was the first thing I saw. It may not have been indexed as "Statute #1" but it was first in the Statutes at Large.

And if the Declaration is "on point," then American governments are instituted with two jobs:
#1 : secure (endowed) rights, and
#2 : govern those who consent.

That is consistent with all I have read in both federal and state constitutions and laws.