I don’t imply it as property by the most accepted definition. Maybe we need other terms - I don’t know. Maybe we need not define it at all.
Discussion
But that *is* the argument that I'm disputing. That self-ownership is the basis for deriving all other human rights. I don't believe you have to own yourself in order to qualify as a moral agent that has rights. It's much easier to believe those rights are socially-derived. That claim is at least consistent with everything we see in the world, and anthropologic history. Claiming something is metaphysically, and objectively true, when everywhere we look, we find innumerable violations of this, including the fact that nation states exist, which are apparently immoral and illegal under this objective truth, just seems like pounding metaphysical sand to me.
It does bring up an interesting question - would AI have rights if it were in human or even robotic form. It wouldn’t have personal agency but you could argue it is morally wrong to abuse AI / robots. In that sense you’re be right that rights are socially derived.