I have an issue with the ‘All rights are property rights’ argument. There is a problem, a big problem, with the Rothbardian claim that the basis of rights is self ownership. A fundamental of ownership is the right to dispose of property, and that I cannot dispose of myself, sell myself, demonstrates that I do not own myself.
I am not complaining about this, I am committed to the conviction that that humans are not, and cannot be, property; that ownership of a human being can be vested in nobody and property rights simply do not apply.
It is the case that although convention allows a live person to specify the means of disposal of their remains, ownership of the corpse is vested in no one, not even the estate, and what is true of a dead body cannot be any less true of a living one.
Does this harm the arguments for freedom? Nope, not at all. Far from it defeating the ‘I own myself, therefore your interfering with me is an interference with my property’, it simply modifies it. Instead, it is a matter of ‘neither you, nor anyone else, may ever have any ownership authority over me, therefore you may never have basis to interfere’.
I would argue the non ownership argument strengthens my right to live my life without interference, rather than weakening it.