—” to be able to = have the freedom to = own the right to = be entitled to = own my personal body & mind. No ???”—
No those things are not in any way equal.
1 – Able to: dependent on your ability to physically think, plan, and act.
2 – Have the freedom to: have purchased membership in a group that tolerates your consumption of opportunities to act in your self interest, as long as it is not contrary to the group’s interests.
3 – Possession is a fact, but ownership is determined by contract with others in the group that defends the order.
4 – A Right can only consist of a demand from a third party enforcer (insurer of last resort).
The libertarian ethos of pastoralists “what I can get away with” is different from the sovereign ethos of landholders “what will not impost costs upon others”. This is why (((certain))) groups use polylogical ethics, and other groups lke northern europeans use logically consistent ethics.
So the marxist -> postmodernist -> libertarian -> neocon spectrum uses many argumentative ’empty verbalisms’ that conflate the meaning of these terms in order to obscure their underlying lack of logical and empirical consistency.
This is why the Crusoe’s island example is a constructive fallacy for the purpose of deception. The ocean forms the fortress walls of the island. The ghetto walls do the same in the city. And the borderlands that indefensible do the same in the countryside. But there are no territories not owned by empires. Only those that the empire grants certain privileges in order to encourage settlement by excess population unable to compete in more established areas.