shrug Ownership? So what?
It isn’t redundant if, like me, you simply don’t think it makes any sense to think of human beings in terms of property.
In order to sidestep thinking of humans as property, could we outsource ownership to an abstract principle like the will? Thus, we could say that the body is property of the will which first homesteaded the body?
For clarification, I haven’t made the argument as it is exactly worded in that wikipedia quote. What I would argue is that it doesn’t make sense for something to own itself because the notion of ownership depends on a relation between subject and object, and if one wants to say that the mind is the subject and the body is the object then I would say that it is still strange to treat this as ownership in the same sense that we otherwise would because we’re really talking about a much more direct kind of control (obviously, my ownership of a chair isn’t the same thing as a telepathic bond which allows me to move it with my mind). I don’t think that a physiological kind of control is the same thing as ownership.
This is the point at which I want to say “What does any of this have to do with property? Are we not just argueing for free will?”. If by “self-ownership” we’re really talking about the capacity of people to autonamously make decisions in the process of action, then it’s a replacement term for free will. And I would want to challenge why it’s necessary to use property as a metaphor for this, as it seems to confuse matters.
Even conceding your point, the term is still redundant. But it’s really off topic and me nit-picking.
I don’t mind the nitpicking. My original reply could be considered nitpicking and to have derailed the thread.
I wouldn’t say that it’s simply control, though. It’s exclusive control along with incorrigible and private mental states.
So even if it is just exclusive control, I see no reason why it doesn’t function in the same exact way as “ownership” would.
The latter term is sexier than the former, however. Would you say that we don’t have exclusive control? If I don’t, who bought my shares?
The difference I pointed out is that in the case of physiological control, there is a direct link with your mind or your will. I can will my arm to move upwards. I can’t will an external object to raise off the ground. Hence my telepathy reductio ad absurdum. In the case of external property, we don’t have direct physiological control over objects - they aren’t part of us. Exclusivity isn’t the distinction, direct connection to the will is.
So, at a minimum, it would have to be aknowledged that “self-ownership” is a special kind of ownership, one inalienable to the will and much more direct in control. It would simply be incorrect to consider it the same kind of ownership involved with external objects.
With a tool you can lift an object off the ground however. Which is exactly what your muscles are, tools used for lifting your bones, and structure. I use them everyday in my crossfit gym. And they most certainly are tools.
I don’t see this as a counter to the underlying point. In one case you literally just have to will something to be the case, while in the other case you have physically move something. Your example of muscles is still one step removed from the will, and it is presumed to be the will here that is doing the controling. In the case of external objects, let’s say a chair, your will obviously does not directly control them. If I say that I own a chair, I am not saying that through a sheer act of will I can control its movement. Unless I adhered to some radical kind of idealism.
And in the case of employing a hammer, it’s one step added. But you wouldn’t say “I Willed that hammer into action”? Or would you?
In so much as you can assert power and control over something, I suppose that is axiomatic. Homesteading as a legal term is an elastic principle of custom that is proably better clearly defined not by “ownership” but better defined by an effecient use of land within the perspective of the legal authority.
that’s what I mean too, when use “self-wonership” 
I’m not sure I understand why the the owner must be separate from the object owned.
I think this is a very good point. For example, take the term “self-control”. This is a much less controversial term. Does anyone assume that, since “control” is otherwise used in a binary relationship (one thing controlling another), controlling oneself means that the controller must also be somehow separate from the controlled? If not, then why is that objection raised for “self-ownership”, which seems to me to be a very similar term?
Because self-control refers to different things. The conscious mind controlling the actions of the body.
Grammatically/linguistically speaking, the word or phrase “self-control” doesn’t imply mind-body dualism.
What is it called when you are in permanent physical possession of something?
Immortality?
You deserve criticism over such a silly response. Was this meant as a joke? Correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure thats a strawman. It’s deceptive to, and now your degrading what has otherwise been a healthy/positive discussion.
It was a facetious comment in response to your use of the word “permanent.” Nobody but the Highlander could ever be in permanent possesion of anything. It doesn’t go with you when you die.