Later, Josiah Warren and Lysander Spooner, political activists in the US, argued for Locke's original case, saying that no person could logically delegate a right they did not possess to a third party, and that no group calling itself a government could legitimately claim to have power a person without his or her consent, thus leaving all people as sovereign individuals.
Depends how you define 'consent'. Is choosing to live in a country consenting to be governed by the relevant government?
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said:
"To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so."
All these things are done by individuals. What people fail to understand is that government is made up of individuals and individuals will behave this way with or without the concept of 'government'.
When we condider that no one wants the above things done to them, we can see that Individual Sovereignty is not only logical but is compatible with The Goldne Rule, particularly in the negative version espoused by Rabbi Hillel several decades before Christ's Sermon on the Mount-- "Do not unto others that which is hateful to you." While Christ's positive version, "Do unto others..." is good, it leaves the possibilty for such things as a masochist beating another person because this is what he wants done to himself.
Thus, it seems that those people who claim self-ownership and dispute anyone having legitimate authority over them, not only have logic on their side, but also the world's most widely accepted ethical principle, The Golden Rule.
Self ownership, freedom, autonomy. these are all just words. These are not absolutes. You are deluding yourself if you think no one has authority over you, whether it is 'legitimate' or not depends on whether you choose to live among others. Whenever you have a group of people, you will have authority. I believe authority has its place for example; police offier, teacher, judge, parent etc. Authority is legitimate in certain contexts because it allows groups of people to live together.
Freedom or authority is a false dichotomy. It is not an 'either/ or' situation. We can be autonomous to some extent and controlled to some extent. In fact we always will be. Absolute freedom is not possible.
I challenge you to tell me how groups of people could function without authority. It's not possible. i suggest you read 'Lord of the Flies'. An excellent example of what happens when authority is removed. Or, look at Iraq right now, an authoritative dictator is removed, their is a power vacuum, a certain level of chaos ensues before another authority comes into place to bring 'order' back. Make no mistake, people prefer order to chaos. It's safe and predictable, and therefore allows people to live more fulfilling lives.