Welcome to college ahaha.
I wonder, could you own your body in the same way you own your mind? Apriori?
By definition a nation is nothing more, but does a collection of people do things that cannot be attributed to an individual? Such as justice? Is justice the property of one person? Or can you only find justice in the collection. I’m not saying nation isn’t reducible to people, just that in reduction you lose some things. I thought of another good example, language isn’t the property of an individual right?
I think so. Control denotes ownership. Since you control your body, you own it. This is the fact of ownership, not to be conflated with the right of ownership.
I believe that the claim that one owns the mind of oneself, which means the thoughts of oneself, is, at the least, metaphorical and, at the most, non-sensical.
-
If one controls the thoughts of oneself, what, if it does not refer to the thoughts, does “one” refer to?
-
If one controls the thoughts of oneself, what controls oneself who controls the thoughts of oneself? and what controls what controls oneself who controls the thoughts of oneself? et cetera, ad infinitum. In that inquiry, therefore, one necessarily encounters a regressus ad infinitum, a regression which human reason cannot exhaust.
If you desire to maintain the use of the notion of “control”, you must, in order to avoid the infinite regression outlined in #2, assume that a “final controller” of the movements of the body of an actor exists. The “final controller” is what we refer to when we refer to the “consciousness” of the body of an actor.
What human society could possibly exist that failed to defend its members while unconscious?
That’s what I was getting at earlier when I responded, “It slipped my mind…This should have been obvious because the other scenario taken to it’s logical extreme is a reductio ad absurdum (nobody having rights while they sleep = humans extinct).”
Your objection is based on the premise that the mind is the thoughts. While that’s not impossible (thoughts are brain activity, and therefore can be controlled), it doesn’t follow that we therefore can’t control it (indeed, the opposite is true). Rather, the mind produces thoughts. One’s body might produce a third leg, it doesn’t follow that one therefore can’t control, or therefore doesn’t own that leg. Thoughts, however, can’t justifiably be absolutely owned for reasons outlined by Stephen Kinsella, and also because once they are produced, they are no longer subject to control (ownership).
It also assumes that you can’t control something that you are. But I am my arm (among other things) and I control my arm.
Finally, it ignores the distinction between the fact of ownership and the right to it. Right to ownership doesn’t follow directly and necessarily from the fact of control.
This is part of the answer, but not the full answer.
I believe this is:
From: Morality, From a Societal Perspective (by me)
I’d say no. “You” are your mind. C.S. Lewis had a famous line - “You don’t have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body.” Just swap out soul for mind, consciousness, or ego.
If you claim that the “thoughts are brain activity” and, therefore, that the thoughts “can be controlled”, what exactly, if it is not either (a) the other thoughts or (b) the other brain activity, “control[s]” them?
In my previous post, I wrote “If one controls the thoughts of oneself, what, if it does not refer to the thoughts, does “one” refer to?”. If you want to dispute that the mind of oneself is the thoughts of oneself, you must address that question, directly or indirectly.
I already addressed and answered this question:
I never said that it does. I never even mentioned the “right to ownership”.
In the above passage, you conflated the actual thought with the content of that thought. In the writings of Stephan Kinsella, he addressed only whether one can “own” the content of a thought, not whether one can “own” the actual thought itself. In my recent posts, I addressed only whether one can “own” the actual thought itself, not whether one can “own” the content of that thought.
It is, though. The brain controls itself, as far as I know (which isn’t saying much). 
A brain can control itself; indeed, the brain does control itself.
I hear the objection often that something can’t own/control itself, but I’m not convinced that’s necessarily true, or that it’s even fundamentally sound.
I think the brain works off of its current state and the state of its sensory perceptions to put itself in a new state. I’d say that is control. I’ve heard it said that thoughts preceed emotions as well.