Perhaps, although not necessarily in the way you think.

“Rand's quote, were it complete, would read "Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality by one's own means…”

Since we’re analysing Rand’s quote, it might pay to see how your amendment would affect the argument presented in the original quote. Here is that argument:

Premise: "Just as man can’t exist without his body,…

Premise: … so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality — to think, to work and to keep the results —…

Conclusion: …which means: the right to property."

As it stands, the argument is a non sequitur, since the conclusion doesn’t necessarily follow from the premises. Leaving that aside, you want to insert “by one’s own means” into the premises. But what are “one’s own means”? Surely they must be one’s property. After all, you insist that they cannot be anyone else’s property. In that case, “the right to translate one’s rights into reality by one's own means…” effectively means “the right to property”.

The argument would then read:

Premise: "Just as man can’t exist without his body,…

Premise: … so no rights can exist without the right to property — to think, to work and to keep the results —…

Conclusion: …which means: the right to property."

In other words, you are smuggling the conclusion into the premises, that is, begging the question. You also claim that "by one's own means" is implicit in all of Rand's writings, which would include this quote. But in highlighting this implicit meaning that Rand apparently attaches to rights, you are merely making explicit the question begging nature of the original quote.

So yes, you’ve cleared up some confusion. But it’s not mine.

Brendan