Self-Ownership Libertarianism

PrefaceI am interested in doing a debate on libertarian ideology. Specifically, a variant espoused by the likes of Nozick. As someone who is definitely not libertarian, I look forward to taking the Con side of this topic. There is a 48 hour time period to post arguments and a 2000 ELO floor to be able to vote on this debate.Full TopicSelf-Ownership-based Libertarianism is a sufficient accounting of how governments ought to behave.TermsSufficient - "enough to meet the needs of a situation or a proposed end" (Merriam Webster). Sufficient implies logical soundness, but it also means that something explains all of the relevant factors involved. For instance, it would be insufficient to create a theory of the gravity that fail to explain all that gravity does. Similarly, it would be insufficient to create a theory of how governments ought to act that does not fully justify everything a government ought to do.Accounting - an explanation.Government - "the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it" (Merriam Webster). A government necessarily holds sovereignty (sole, dual, concurrent, etc.) over a specific geographical region. For the sake of clarity, what constitutes a government will be limited to something recognized by a majority of its peers, i.e. fellow governments, and constituting governments of the recognized authority (e.g. municipal governments).Ought - expresses moral obligation.Behavior - "to act, function, or react in a particular way" (Merriam Webster).Self-Ownership-based Libertarianism - this is the idea that all people own themselves; thus, each person exercises absolute property rights over themselves. Due to this self-ownership, only a minimal/night-watchman state could arise, because only such a state would respect people as self-owners; rights are necessary side-constraints to government power. Edward Feser explains that such a stance supports "a government which protects individuals, via police and military forces, from force...and administers courts of law, but does nothing else. In particular, such a state cannot regulate what citizens eat, drink, or smoke (since this would interfere with their right to use their self-owned bodies as they see fit), cannot control what they publish or read (since this would interfere with their right to use the property they've acquired with their self-owned labor--e.g. printing presses and paper), cannot administer mandatory social insurance schemes...(since this would interfere with citizens’ rights to use the fruits of their labor as they desire, in that some citizens might decide that they would rather put their money into...private retirement plans), and cannot regulate economic life in general via wage laws and the like.”Rules1. No forfeits2. Any citations or foot/endnotes must be provided in the text of the debate3. No new arguments in the final round4. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere5. No trolling6. Pro accepts the full BOP for the debate 7. Violation of any of these rules or of any of the R1 set-up merits a lossStructureR1. Acceptance, Pro presents Pro's Constructive CaseR2. Con presents Con's Constructive Case, Pro rebuts Con's CaseR3. Con rebuts Pro's Case, Pro defends Pro's Case and CrystallizesR4. Con defends Con's Case and Crystallizes, Pro posts "no round as agreed"Thanks......to whomever; I eagerly look forward to a this debate!