I don't see that self-ownership leads to private property. Roderick Long, in order to make that conclusion, inserts the things once used into the boundaries of the self (…"by transforming external objects so as to incorporate them into my ongoing projects, I make them an extension
of myself, in a manner analogous to the way that food becomes part of my body through digestion"…), but that is not necessarily true of anything that a person has once had a use for. How then, do you assess that a building is an extension of someone's self ? No evidence can be given of such a link. A past user, then, stands in the same relation to an empty as, say, a homeless person. Since no evidence of there being an extension can be given, the argument is purely philosophical and would have no use in court. Therefore there is no automatic conclusion, and a decision must be made by the community as to whether past use gives an automatic title or not.

What you're doing then is confusing it with the normative proposition of whether one's actions should never be dictated by someone else. But you fist need to explain why this must be so. You can't just simply assert it and point to some imaginary Natural Law in lieu of argument.

Which other conclusions ?

The validity of Private Property for one.

As for the normative idea implying that one should not hand over control but could, I don't think this is correct. I think of self-ownership as an inalienable right, which precludes the possibility of handing over control of your body. And an inalienable right is by necessity a normative right, in the sense that it should always be respected everywhere around the world, regardless of the legislations. But you know all that already. Don't really know what to make of that description of a normative idea…

So, I would say the requirement for the legality of any ownership system, under natural law, is its voluntary basis, ie anarchy.

Voluntarism is not enough for Anarchy and even if it were, your Natural law does not really tell us much since the difference between systems based on Propertarian and Possessive ownership is immense.

As such, the way you present Natural Law, you might as well be saying "I think" instead of "Natural law says"

Similarly, natural law might require that men organize systems of ownership– so as to avoid conflict, without saying which particular one. In fact, I think the avoidance of conflict comes about, not because one system of ownership is better than all the other supposedly evil-confused ones, but because it has been ratified by the consensus of all involved, which is what is implied by the use of the word organize, as you must know.

So, I would say the requirement for the legality of any ownership system, under natural law, is its voluntary basis, ie anarchy. And this is why it is not idiotic for anarcho-capitalists to say that the common enemy is the state. I looked at some other articles of yours, and although it's a lot of fun reading them, I find your rants completely patronizing and disturbing, in a way that someone who would hold property is "right" (as opposed to other systems) would be patronizing and talking out of his ass.

but it still is true that I am totally free to do anything I want with myself, and any other position is tyrannical.

You confuse self-ownership is a decriptive idea and self-ownership as a normative idea. The former says that one cannot hand over control of his body to someone else (barring sci-fi mind control schemes) and the later says that one should not hand over control of his body to someone else, implying that it is possible. Of course, in reality the later is simply talking about slavery situations but is using this terminology in order to jump to other conclusions.