yes, of course I own myself... and you out there, ya you.... you own yourself too.
despite the ramblings of idiots, self ownership really has nothing to do with a secret evil Libertarian agenda.
although it is prioritized by libertarianism and classic liberalism ( and a few other ideologies)... they did not invent the concept, they do not own the concept, and it is not bestowed upon you by registering Libertarian....Haymarket's Domino Theory is bunk, it's garbage, it's nonsense.. a fallacy.
even the most diehard of authoritarians owns himself... that commie over there?.. ya , him too... the anarchist?... yup, him as well.
the concept of self ownership is codified into our culture, our laws, out government, our parenting , our personal and commercial relationships... hell , I can't think of anything that it isn't present in.
as Moot so astutely points out, John Locke did a fine job putting the concept into words.... he's not the only philosopher who has done so, he's just the guy who was able to sum it up the best.
self ownership is not antithesis to the Social Contract ( the philosophers who penned the concept are also adherents to the concept of self ownership).. in fact, the social Contract theory relies on self-ownership for it's legitimacy...self ownership is simply part and parcel of the Social Contract.
the social contract holds that humans , in a state of nature, are self owned and possessing of natural rights.. that is the starting point, or basis, for the whole shebang... from there, it uses the concept of self ownership, and the peripheral tenants of ownership itself, to legitimize the idea of the state having a certain amount of authority over the individual, in order to coexist in a collective.. a society.
consent is another codification of self ownership.. simply because it is permission given by the "owner" of the "property"... whether that consent be explicit, implied, or tactic, it's still considered permission from the bossman... consent is found to be necessary to legitimize encroachments into personal sovereignty.
if consent is necessary, ownership is present, simple as.
anyways, if you believe in the Social Contract, you too believe in self-ownership.
i've seen someone earlier in the thread question why self ownership is considered a question of ethics...that's an easy one to answer.
I think we can all agree that there have been cases of another party taking ownership of an individual, or more accurately, partial ownership ( one cannot own another thoughts, dreams, etc... they can only exert physical control over another)
the consent of self ownership simply explains why that is wrong... if taking ownership of another person is wrong, there must be a right to counter the wrong... that condition of being right is found in self ownership.
now, one might say that non-ownership is the right to counter the wrong, however, a position of non-ownership cannot be applied in practical terms.
ownership exists... it's a simple as that... people CAN own other people....it's been done all throughout history, and it's still being done.
given that ownership does exist, one cannot argue that it doesn't.. one must argue as to the where rightful ownership must be applied in order to be legitimate.
if ownership exists, and we find it wrong for another to own another, we are left with a single choice... that of ownership of the self.
anyways, yeah... self ownership is an ethical matter, as it simply breaks down where rightful ownership lies.