First, I’m a little curious how you would have responded (before reading Rothbard) to someone who says that, for instance, torturing some group of people is OK because they have no rights.
As to self-ownership and natural rights, there was a period last year when they were discussed frequently by me and others. I linked the two that I know for sure focus on self-ownership, but they all deal with natural rights. I am of course always happy to debate on the matter.
“Actual logical proof of natural law” Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law
“Can you define natural rights as a meaningful concept?” Can You Define Natural Rights as a Meaningful Concept?
What are rights according to those on the forums? Rights
“The question of “natural” rights” The question of "natural" rights
“Oughtism and its cure” Oughtism and its Cure
“David Osterfeld on natural rights and self-ownership” David Osterfeld on natural rights
How do natural rights cross the is-ought divide? How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?
Does it make sense that human morality be a matter of deduction? Does it make sense that human morality would be a matter of rigorous deduction?
Rasmussen natural rights proof https://forum.freecapitalists.org/groups/natural_rights/forum/p/7370/238502.aspx
Rothbard self-ownership, my refutation David Osterfeld on natural rights - #2 by Amanojack
Adam Knott’s outstanding post on Mises and objective ethics The Ancient Chimera of Universal, Absolute, and Objective Value - #177 by adam_knott
O’Neil’s essay Ayn Rand Is-Ought http://mises.org/journals/jls/7_1/7_1_4.pdf
I think we can agree that normative rights are based on ethics, and ethics are based on what is right and wrong. On right and wrong, I follow Mises when he said, “We originally want or desire an object not because it is agreeable or good, but we call it agreeable or good because we want or desire it.”