Yes, but will the government ignore you?

I don't accept your premise: there is no Creator.

I think you want to talk solely about rights, but not the accompanying responsibilities. When asked about the newly formed government, Benjamin Franklin noted "A Republic. If you can keep it." He was noting that representative government requires action by its citizens to uphold the principles of natural rights and to keep in check its own government from encroachment upon those rights. We can not simply do nothing and expect to retain our rights.

As citizens, we must form militias for self-defense. In the early days, those militias were simply the able-bodied in every township who would come to the defense of said township. And it was the duty of everyone to participate. During the Civil War, those militias became conscripted armies for the States where they lived, but they were still fighting for their homes. Following the Civil War, however, the United States began turning more and more to professional armies. See the Mexican War and the (Native American) Indian Wars rather than the less formal militias. Now, people think militias are wacko militant groups.

Let's take voting as a second example. In the early days, every man was actively engaged in town halls and even preached politics from the pulpit in the local congregation. We had an informed and motivated electorate who put pressure on their elected representatives to hold to Constitutional values. Now people know more about Kim Kardashian than their Senators and Representatives.

People have already surrendered their rights to liberty by allowing passage of the personal income tax and by extension it's right to tax businesses - and hold certain charities, etc. as tax-exempt provided they don't engage in political speech. They enslave themselves by voting for politicians who promise them handouts at the expense of their children and "the rich".

And why? Because they don't want the responsibilities that come with the rights involved in freedom.

I will soon be self sufficient in a hidden place and I will ignore this government. I hope!

Not true. Governments are created to protect and defend individual liberties, but as a condition of membership in an organization (freedom of association), that membership may demand certain actions by its members. Voting comes with the stipulation of registering for the Selective Service. I would also note that under the original Constitution, the only "taxation" deemed acceptable was tariffs on imported goods. It wasn't until Woodrow Wilson in the early 1900's that the Income Tax was postulated and became law by Amendment.

As to those who "do not consent to be governed" it is their responsibility to leave. One does not get to enjoy the protection of the armed services, protection via police and fire resources, our educational establishments, our roads, etc. without consenting to be governed in return. It is either all out or all in. There is no fence-sitting.

I can go into more detail later (and I may be mistaken), but I’m under the impression (from the title of this thread and our subsequent exchanges) that the concept of creator-endowed natural rights is an essential component of his point of view. I’m also under the impression that the issue of “consent” has a different meaning for Objectivists than for others. The Objectivist view (in my understanding) is that a legitimate government (one that protects individual rights) has jurisdiction over a given geographical area, regardless of the circumstances of that government’s creation. Thus, for Objectivists, the issue of an individual’s consent to such jurisdiction does not arise.

I could be wrong, but I think that you and JetG are first in disagreement about the source of rights. It is the bedrock that underlies all the argument in favor of individuals over government. I think both you and JetG could have a more productive discussion if you can set aside that disagreement for another time and look together at the laws that established America. I don't suggest that you disregard the question of how the rights came to be, because it is important, but if you set it aside for the moment and accept that individual rights exist before government you can discuss productively the importance of "consent."
I think that rationally examining that evidence in the law will provide a bond that makes the source of rights discussion easier at another time.

Re: " When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. I assume "retire elsewhere" means leaving the geographical boundaries of the new republic, not remaining in place.

I am a citizen of the land of me. I sneakily reside in a world that mostly does not acknowledge my existence except to annually steal some of my property which I allow so as not to be noticed. My camouflage is to give the appearance of obeying artificial laws while actually living by my own code. To the extent that I achieve this, my life is good, when I cannot hide from my oppressors, my life is hell.

Re: “As to Ms Rand's philosophy, she's a day late and a dollar short.” Okay, we now know what you think of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. You’re entitled to your opinion, but it’s not likely to win you any converts on this forum.

“Endowed rights” may or may not be defined in American law, but that does not mean they have any basis in reality. Objectivists are concerned with whether a government is performing its proper functions, and we don’t accept something as fact just because a law says it is.

Various legal references may support your position, but there are plenty of legal cases and references that don’t. The English language is imprecise enough that many interpretations are possible for even the simplest and most straightforward laws.

Is “being a sovereign American” that abhorrent? It depends on the legal and social context, including the means that are employed in a “sovereign” society for dispute resolution and protection from foreign invasion.

Do I care if my government “servants” believe in a Creator? It depends on what their “Creator” is telling them to do. If they put “God’s Law” above my individual rights, I care very much.

The reference to "sheeple" and "indoctrination" was in reference to the propaganda ministry's efforts at mind control.

Frankly, despite it being part of American law since 1776, few "sheeple" know of the republican form, its definition, or its source. Such ignorance is not limited to atheists. Ergo, no presumption of slur was intended toward any philosophy, secular or religious. And any such inference was not intended.

As to Ms Rand's philosophy, she's a day late and a dollar short.

Endowed rights, as already defined in American law, are superior to government granted privileges that most have consented to.

The original question spells it out:
If you have Creator endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, inherent powers, absolute ownership and immunities, what more would you want that would persuade you to surrender all that, by consent, to be a citizen / elector ?

As the various legal references point out: Americans have these rights, by birth - unless they consent otherwise.
Objectivism does not add any thing to the tally.
But if you wish to govern others - well - that's part of the democratic form and you have to consent to be governed before you can lead the band. Ditto, for special privileges. Oh - and since endowed rights are not subject to taxation, only government privileges are subject to taxation. (You may now see why "sheeple" is an apt description of the millions who are misled to assume otherwise.)
Do not believe me, go read the law for yourself. I'm not infallible, and may have made a mistake.

Is being a sovereign American, untaxed, with natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership, inherent powers, etc, that abhorrent?
And if the government's servants defending your rights want to believe in a Creator, as part of their ideology, is that unacceptable?
I think not.

Objectivists don’t recognize rights as being “endowed”. Thomas Jefferson et. al. are not “liars”, but they were mistaken on certain issues. The court decision you cite makes an analogy, not an absolute identity. The Articles of Confederation excerpt you cite appears to be using the terms “inhabitants” and “citizens” interchangeably.

Objectivists do not recognize any “mandatory civic duties” apart from respecting the rights of others. We consider the imposition of such duties as a government overstepping its proper bounds. But we do recognize that governments should exist, and that their proper function is the protection of individual rights.

It’s pretty arrogant to call atheists “sheeple” and “indoctrinated”, considering this is an Ayn Rand forum. We don’t go on religious forums and tell their members that they are “irrational”, "credulous" and “superstitious”.

As Craig Biddle points out, “The idea that rights come from God is particularly popular among conservatives and Republicans.” But not Objectivists.

Ayn Rand demonstrated that rights do not come from a god or from government. The article I cited above shows how she logically derived her views and how they differ in many crucial respects from the conventional religious view, the statist view and the views of Locke and many of the Founding Fathers. “We need to be able rationally to explain where rights come from and why we have them. Toward that end, we need a rational account of natural moral law—moral law derived not from “super-nature” but from actual nature—moral law not merely asserted but proven—proven by means of evidence and logic. Ayn Rand provided just that.”
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...

As a victim of the WGPM, I can sympathize. BUT. If you read the actual laws and court decisions, there is a distinct dichotomy between American "people" who are sovereigns, and American "citizens" who are subjects.
People who are sovereigns without subjects cannot be 'born citizens' subject to a government that was instituted to secure endowed rights.
Either Thomas Jefferson, et al, are liars, or we're victims of a great fraud.

"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)

Here's one tidbit that may illuminate the issue:

"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states ..."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]

So we know there are “free inhabitants” (i.e., “free men”) who are NOT “free citizens.”
And we know that citizens = subjects, under the common law.
Subjects owes allegiance to a sovereign. They are not sovereigns. They have mandatory civic duties, so they are not free men, nor are they at liberty.

And yet, Justice John Jay wrote:
* “... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves[.]”*
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...

Perhaps this is why few Americans are ever taught the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION in government controlled indoctrination centers.

One might discover that there are non-citizen inhabitants who retained their endowed rights.

IN American one can be a sovereign without subjects, endowed with rights
-or-
One can consent to be a subject citizen, obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, in exchange for political liberty (voting and holding public office.)

Ayn Rand was talking about the moral principle of individual rights, which applies as much in America as anyplace else. And as I read it, anyone born in the United States whose parents are citizens automatically becomes a citizen "subject to its jurisdiction".
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/...

"NOT HAVE CREATOR ENDOWED RIGHTS?"
Not according to Thomas Jefferson, et al, and the governments instituted to secure those pesky "SACRED" rights.

Of course, most Americans have been indoctrinated by the WGPM, and thus were ignorant of that fact.
Their goal was to get the sheeple to accept that there is no Creator, thus no Creator endowed rights, leaving the collectivists / slavers / warlords with no opposition when they conveniently abrogate them.

" Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as SACRED AS THE RIGHT TO PRIVATE PROPERTY...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum , Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987.

Sacred rights include, but are not limited to : absolute ownership of private property, personal liberty, and natural rights.

NATURAL RIGHTS - ... are the rights of life, liberty, privacy, and good reputation.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 1324

NATURAL LIBERTY. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature. The right which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the law of nature, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same rights by other men. 1 Bl.Comm. 125.

"The individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing. The corporation is an artificial entity which owes its existence and charter powers to the state; but, the individual's rights to live and own property are NATURAL RIGHTS for the enjoyment of which an excise [tax] cannot be imposed."
Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819.

... WGPM = World's Greatest Propaganda Ministry

You do not have Creator-endowed natural rights. “But the theory that rights come from God is hopeless. To begin with, there is no evidence for the existence of such a being, much less for the existence of rights that somehow emanate from his will. . . Rights in support of which there is no evidence are not rights but fantasies.” –Criag Biddle, from The Objective Standard, Vol. 6, No. 3.
https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...

Agreed. . . Except in America.
The duty is due to consent to be a citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American...
"The great draft riot in New York City in July 1863 involved Irish immigrants who had been signed up as citizens to swell the vote of the city's Democratic political machine, not realizing it made them liable for the draft."

Though most Americans presume they were "born citizens," that is legally impossible in the united States of America under the promised republican form.

Do not believe me - go read the law and write polite questionnaires to public servants like the attorney general. Ask where the jurisdiction of the "United States" is, and thus identify who were born "subject to its jurisdiction."

As Justice John Jay wrote, Americans are sovereigns without subjects. And citizens, by definition, are subjects, due to mandatory civic duties.

"Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time." -- Ayn Rand

Republican Form << not synonymous with >> Republic

Thanks to the world's greatest propaganda ministry, not 1 in 100,000 Americans can accurately define, nor identify the source of the promised republican form of government. (No, it's not a constitutional republic).

The RFOG was described in the Declaration of Independence, wherein it stated that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. And such governments can only govern / rule by consent of the governed. Absent consent, government cannot rule - only serve. Therefore, the people are sovereigns.
. . . .
No other nation on earth has a republican form, where the people are sovereigns. Nor can a constitution "create" a RFOG, since submission to the terms of the compact void sovereignty.
. . . .
God blessed Americans with a republican form of government. . . the only nation on earth with such a form.
= = = = =
RFOG: THE IDEAL FORM

“The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the Rights of mankind.”
- - - Thomas Jefferson
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_...

“I firmly believe that the benevolent Creator designed the republican Form of Government for Man.”
- - - Samuel Adams;
Statement of (14 April 1785), quoted in The Writings of Samuel Adams (1904) edited by Harry A. Cushing
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Samuel_A...

"What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
- - - Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Peoria, Illinois (1854)
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abraham_...

As Lincoln reminds us, under the republican form, endowed by our Creator, promised by the USCON, instituted by the Declaration of Independence, NO MAN (nor American government) is good enough to govern you without your consent. Without your consent, all that government is authorized to do is secure endowed (sacred) rights (prosecute trespass; adjudicate disputes; defend against enemies, foreign or domestic).
. . .
" When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent."
- - - CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70.

HE IS NOT BOUND BY ANY INSTITUTIONS FORMED BY HIS FELLOWMEN WITHOUT HIS CONSENT.

Without consent, no majority can rule nor govern, only secure endowed rights of the sovereign people.

All endowed rights and liberties are from the Creator, not government, and thus cannot be subject to a majority vote, or any other infringement.
. . .
“... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people, and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects, and have none to govern but themselves. . .
“... In Europe, the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here, it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and, at most, stand in the same relation to their sovereign in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns.”
- - - Justice John Jay, Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 2 Dall. 419 419 (1793)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremeco...

Under the republican form, Americans are sovereigns without subjects, and the social equal of all other monarchs. That is why Americans do not bow nor kneel to foreign monarchs (or should not). And it also explains why Americans can marry foreign nobility without violating local laws barring such unions with "commoners." And though vulgar, it is legally accurate to retort, "Kiss my royal American @ss!"

Note: citizenship imposes civic duties that abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, inherent powers and immunities.

. . .
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

[... Every citizen ... owes a portion of his property ... and services in defense ... in the militia ... from 18 to 50 years of age... ]

IN SHORT,
The American citizen has no endowed right to life, nor liberty, nor absolute ownership because, as a subject, he can be ordered to train, fight, and die, on command (militia duty), and was obligated to give up a portion of his property (taxes, etc).
However, that does not negate the endowed rights of the American people (noncitizens) who did not consent to be governed.

Governments instituted to secure endowed rights cannot confer them - they already exist. Anything government gives is a privilege, not an endowed right.

According to the Declaration of Independence, Americans are endowed by their Creator with life, liberty, absolute ownership and other inherent powers.
Yet, all citizens are obligated to perform mandatory civic duties that abrogate endowed rights. (Ex: militia duty)

The courts rule that we have endowed / sacred / inherent rights.

" PERSONAL LIBERTY, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental or Natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is one of the most SACRED and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private property...and is regarded as inalienable."
- - - 16 Corpus Juris Secundum, Constitutional Law, Sect.202, p.987...
. . .
Yet they also rule that mandatory duties are not INVOLUNTARY servitude.
. . .
The Supreme Court has held, in Butler v. Perry, 240 U.S. 328 (1916), that the Thirteenth Amendment does not prohibit "enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc." In Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918), the Supreme Court ruled that the military draft was not "involuntary servitude".

Who is correct?

Is Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration correct, stating that all men [American people] have Creator endowed rights that government was instituted to secure?
Or constitutional government that imposes mandatory civic duties upon “individuals” (citizens)?

The only explanation that resolves this conundrum is that CONSENT (via citizenship, socialism, and banking) voids endowed rights, thus making the obligations VOLUNTARY.

In other words, Americans do have Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, absolute ownership and other inherent powers of sovereignty UNLESS they consent. In which case they surrender those rights in exchange for government privileges (political and civil liberty), and concomitant civic duties that would otherwise violate the endowed rights to life, liberty, absolute ownership and inherent powers.

❏ In America, if you have endowed rights, you’re under the republican form of government.
❏ If instead of endowed rights, you have mandatory civic duties, you’re under the constitutionally limited indirect democracy that serves the people in the republican form of government.
❏ If you have socialist obligations, you’ve volunteered into the socialist democratic form, via FICA.

Under the republican form of government, Americans do have endowed rights, etc., that government was instituted to secure. However, if one consents to be governed, what you allude to is part of the package deal - political and civil liberties (aka "rights").
Remember, a republican form is not synonymous with a republic. The People's Republic of China is a republic - but not a republican form.
. . .

If you are not part of a society the items you mentioned are yours, but they have no effect on you as a single individual wandering aimlessly about the countryside. As soon as there are more than one person involved the rights you mentioned must be protected. otherwise the guy with the biggest stick (read weapon) rules and all you hold so dear is gone.
Over time mankind as developed several ways of the government granting privileges to the citizens of the country. Note they grant privileges not rights.
they have the rights you get what the rulers want you to have. As far back as the Greeks societies it was realized that monarchy, oligarchy e and all of the other archies were by their nature oppressive to some extent or another. Athens tried tru democracy and it worked for a while, then along came the Persians and the Spartans and they elected a dictator and that ended the democracy ( a much simplified and time compressed statement).
Rome tried a Republic, that worked for a while then it failed (Julius Ceaser and the other cearsers saw to that). Now to my main point. A democracy or a republic confers rights upon its citizens, not privileges. Each instance enumerates the rights differently but basically itthe rights allow you to pretty much do as you please unless you attempt to trample on the rights of others. The protection of rights requires laws and custom. Laws inparticular require approval of the population. In a democracy allpeople vote on the law. In a republic the representatives of the citizens vote on them after being elected by the citizens.
Thus without the vote you cannot protect your rights and they become privileges that can be taken away since you have no real recourse . Enough of the rightrs get taken away and you get a revolution which in most cases replaces the current ruling class with another. There are a few notable exceptions, the USA being the most prominent.
So by voting or being able to bvote I don’t give up any natual right byt ensure them for myself and the others citizens coming after me.

Just my humble opinion and view of life.

Very thought provoking post: +1