> so the government limiting your right to murder people means that the government owns you already.

You have no right to hurt other people. Having the government prevent you from murdering people is not owning you and is not infringing on your rights. Actually, the government should not be preventing you from murdering others - it is there to mete out justice if you do.

> Having the government prevent you from murdering people is not owning you and is not infringing on your rights.

Of course it is! You just don't believe my exercise of those rights is legitimate, but there's no intrinsically different about the act of shooting someone and the act of riding a bike without a helmet, from a Hobbesian point of view. You can argue that the government/society has a more legitimate interest in limiting exercise of one of those rights, and I'd agree. But when we're talking about what rights should be, you can't use a legal definition of rights. That's circular.

> Actually, the government should not be preventing you from murdering others - it is there to mete out justice if you do.

And see, this is I think an interesting argument. But it leads to a really perverse system. You can't engage in any form of harm reduction policy, which means the only lever you have to reduce criminal/harmful activity is to have really cruel punishments for the few directly harmful acts.

Like take speeding or drinking and driving as obvious examples. Under the "only mete justice if you harm others" approach, you can't criminalize drunk driving or speeding, only vehicular manslaughter, so you either live with more death due to dangerous driving, or you have to like make the punishment for drunk/dangerous driving so terrible that it dissuades people from even engaging in the risky behavior. But in practice, avoiding the circumstances that lead to harm is better for everyone (the victim, the potential perpetrator, society at large) than punishing people after the fact, and there are lots of situations where punishments simply don't work.

Meting out "justice" sounds like imposing government ownership.

Only if you can't see any difference between law and power.

Given that the argument being made here is that some laws formed by legitimate democratic institutions impose ownership (and are therefore unjust) no, you can't draw a distinction between laws and power here.

The Athenian assembly voted to massacre all the men on Melos, and sell the women and children into slavery. If you believe democracy is the source of all legitimacy, you need to debug your beliefs.

Edit: it's unclear whether that atrocity came to a vote, though it certainly happened. To pick a clear case of unjust and unlawful democratic legislation in the same war, there was the time they voted to execute six of eight generals, rather than subject each to a trial.