Self-Ownership, can it be questioned?

I own my own body. I therefore rule it. I decide how my faculties shall be employed and I make all decisions concerning my person and personal possessions. This sounds pretty self-evident to me. But there are some people (sadly 99% of the population consists of such people) who argue otherwise. They say we are not self-owners because they want control. They want to decide what we put into our bodies. They want to decide how we use our bodies. They are tyrants, pure and simple.
As a libertarian (progressing from the classical conservative-liberal tradition of Blackstone, Spencer, and Acton) I know self-ownership to be the only possible rule applicable to humanity as a whole and to individual people. There are two ways one could tackle the problem of proving self-ownership - either by proving it directly and axiomatically (the Hoppeian way) or by disproving all other possibilities (the Rothbardian way). So here I am going to offer the simple versions of the two arguments:
Rothbard claims there are three ways a person can exist in society:
(1) Everyone owns their own body
(2) Some people own the bodies of the rest of the people.
(3) Everyone owns the bodies of everyone.
He then proves only option (1) is functional and universal. Option (3) is impossible because in order to act a person would need to receive the approval of every one of his owners, i.e. every other person in the world. And every other person would need the permission of other people in order to give permission to the first person. Thus action under such a system is impossible and all people would die. Option (2) on the other case (an oligarchic slave/master dichotomy) is impossible because it is not universal. Every scientific Law has to be universal in order to work. Thus by creating a law which distinguishes between two types of people (remember, our aim was to create a law which applies to ALL people) we have to make arbitrary decisions on who is the master and who is the slave. Thus option (1) is the only Law which is both universal AND functional.
Professor Hoppe's proof, however, is even more decisive:
He says that it is impossible to even argue about self-ownership. After all, if you do not own yourself, you cannot argue! You cannot open your own mouth or think with your own brain! Thus saying "I am not a self-owner" is a contradiction - you are not allowed to speak if you are not a self-owner. By speaking you contradict what you are saying!

Why would I present this basic, yet obscure proof on my blog? After all everyone from the time of John Locke has accepted it as true... But it is crucial to understand it. Everyone who believes in liberty must be able to stand his ground against all kinds of evil people who try to usurp his rights. And as Murray Rothbard eloquently wrote, all our rights come initially from the notion of self-ownership: "If a man has the right to self-ownership, to the control of his life, then in the real world he must also have the right to sustain his life by grappling with and transforming resources; he must be able to own the ground and the resources on which he stands and which he must use. In short, to sustain his human right."