Does necrophilia violate the NAP?

well, pol, how do you respond?

>A friend of mine, A, believes necrophilia cannot be engaged in with the dead body of a person who would have opposed it if alive. (A, tell me if I’m wrong about my understanding of your viewpoint). This is my attack on him, or my defense of my view. A person can’t own or transfer any property before they’re conceived because their consciousness does not yet exist.

>Therefore, since a person’s consciousness doesn’t exist after their death, they cannot own or transfer property once dead.

>If a dead person cannot own or transfer property then wills should state the following,

>One second before my death all my worldly possessions are transferred from me (X) to Y.

>However, imagine no one else exists or that no one wants to take X’s property.

>If that is the case then I’m sure you would agree that the body of X, along with the rest of his property enters into the abandoned property category.

>If property is either virgin or abandoned anyone may homestead it and do whatever they like with the property they homestead.

>This means a person could homestead an abandoned body and engage in necrophilia, even if the previous owner of the body would have objected.

Other urls found in this thread:

philosophynow.org/issues/27/Roger_Scruton
reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

He has no consent
It breaks the NAP

By US law any corpse is government property no matter what you would put in a will.

dead bodies can't consent
>US law
>ancapistan

US law breaks the NAP all by itself

>By US law any corpse is government property
Can you source me on that Sven, I have some rustling to do.

So yes, it does break the NAP since it can't consent

Dead bodies can't consent or not consent. They're not people.

Do you ask a watermelon for consent before you sitck your dick in it?

Neither can sleeping people or people in a coma consent, so?
And no, no lifeform consents to being eaten

anyone who engages in such acts should be drawn and quartered and put in public display in chains

>dead bodies cant consent
>but infants and animals can
daily reminder ayncrapism is made up as it goes along

Dead bodies can't consent and can't not consent either. They have no rights and aren't people or agents. Dead people can't own property

Check this now

And neither can sleeping people or people in a coma consent though, neither can a babby, so we can just rape them all because they can't consent?

>The AnCap is concerned about what breaks the NAP
some memes write themself

>using a utilitarian argument in ayncrap society where its totally irrelevant
BUT WHAT IF THE CHILD DOESNT CONSENT THO.

a sleeping person is not dead you fucking ingrate

A sleeping person can't consent you antique farm equipment

What is nap?

Non Agression principle, it's the law of Ancaptopia
But there are loopholes in there like Swiss cheese, for example you can rape a dog and a baby since they can't consent and thus 'they aren't persons'

You're entirely missing the point bro. Reread what I said. Dead bodies aren't even alive and have no rights to anything. Saying they can't consent is a categorical mistake. True they can't consent, but not because they're prevented from consenting for this or that reason, but because the mere concept of consenting doesn't apply to it. Dead bodies that aren't owned by anyone (aka a living person) are the property of whoever homesteads them first. In ancap theory consent = using your property and/or letting others use it. Once you're dead you can no more own a body than Genghis Khan can own castles.
A dead body is not even in the same category as children, or even animals (which arhuably don't own anything either), they're in the same category as meat and pork

Let's freaking finish this
Something that CAN'T CONSENT, WILL NOT BE RAPED AND MURDERED
Leave those animals and kids alone

...

I bet you're fat.. Just a random statement

the imaginary law that people will not offend anyone else. basically a "mutually assured destruction" policy on an extremely individual level
obviously unworkable in reality because MAD only works when all parties are equal.

>tfw no ghost gf

what kind of lame insult is this o.o how old are you, son.

I bet you can't beat a sleeping person in a fight
Just observing

A dead body can't be raped. Nor can animals (there are analogous crimes that apply to them tho)

I'm trying to expose ancap degeneracy but you argument is awful

>A friend of mine, A, burying in the cold, cold ground cannot be engaged in with the dead body of a person who would have opposed it if alive.

Sorry, Ithink necrophilia is disgusting, but that aside I don;t see how ownership continues after death, nor rights.

You could make a case that the ESTATE of the deceased would have to be contacted to secure permission.

What about a ghost? Does fucking the ghost violate NAP?

And yet I just showed ancaps shilling for NAMBLA

Because it can't consent? Neither can a baby for the matter

if the ghost can retaliate, then yes, dont violate the NAP
if the ghost can't retaliate, then it doesnt even matter if it has a NAP in the first place.

He argues for necrophilia with bodies that have no owners. I suppose he would accept necrophilia as a crime if someone specifies a cemetery or person or estate to be the owners of his body after he dies

Pretty sure cadavers are either propriety of immediate family, or if they have none, the state. This assuming the deceased passed away recently and still retains a humanoid shape, since you can't own dust.

Necrophilia is still disgusting and unhealthy, and you should get some therapy ASAP if you have strong, consistent urges, since it's likely you have other screws loose.

ultimately ayncrapism is just "might makes right". when you point out that thats just barbarism they might call it "natural law" as if its some sort of well thought out legal principle

NAP is based on natural rights, dead people have no faculty of their own and therefore have no rights.

Now, there are two scenarios for things without rights: either they are left in their natural state, is this case the body was abandoned, hence you can claim ownership of it.

Or it belongs to someone, such as when it is buried within a graveyard or is concerned somehow. In the case, the owner needs to consent, else you are violating the NAP of to owner.

Because animals have no rights. Saying they must consent is unduly treating them as humans. By that logic it'd be illegal to use animals for labour, as mounts or in jobs (like police/guide/sheep dogs, transport llamas and horses, cattle/pigs for food, etc)

I suggest Roger Scruton's short book on this, Animal Rights and Wrongs

>the state
>not a violation of the NAP

You can't own objects that belong to the state.

You can contest the case in court, but if you have no relation with the deceased at all or no good justification for owning them, you're out of luck.

Are you saying a baby is equal to a dog?
And even then no animal consents to be eaten, therefore that breaks the holy nap as well
Just admit it, it's might makes right, WE are the predators, WE hunt and WE get what we want, right?

He breaks the NAP with the dead person's family

Here's what I mean philosophynow.org/issues/27/Roger_Scruton

Who exactly enforces the NAP?

I don't endorse the NAP, and if you think what I said supports the idea babies are similar to dogs you have awful reading comprehension skills.

its a "mutually assured destruction" policy; if you offend someone supposedly the person will take revenge. yes its as stupid as it sounds

This answer ignores the NAP. It says since the state ignores the NAP (and it's mere existence does) than necrophilia violates the state's property rights, but the question is only about necrophilia and the NAP in general. They even make explicit that no one owns the bodies they're talking about. I don't think theres a good NAP based argument against necrophilia in this case

>Yeah if you shoot me dead and steal my shit I'm gonna shoot you right back!

>However, imagine no one else exists or that no one wants to take X’s property.
The market, somehow

>and a baby can't consent
>"because animals have no rights"
I either have awful reading skills other you're just a shite writer lad, and I think it's the latter

Or*

exactly. they will then try to justify it, "oh the family members will step in!" or maybe the dead person has insurance so a mysterious assassin or private security will come after you after his death!
its really fucking farfetched and hilarious.

If there's no authority to enforce anything it's "finders keepers" and "might makes right".

If you can assert your authority over the corpse you can do whatever the hell you want to do with it. There are only moral arguments from whatever sort of family/community you live in.

>discussing subjective morality that can't be enforced without a state
>probably think that the same as ancommies that "society will come together to enforce it" ie a de facto state

It isn't this hard to understand

Yeah, this is really stupid. There are no real debates to be had in a lawless, governmentless society.

It is. Kek.
I agree

So just because they can't consent it gives us the authority to rape them?

>o.o
Faggot

If body's can't own property then a living will should be ignored

Just a reminder that a human corpse loses aproximately 1°C per hour until it reaches room temperature, so you need to be quick to give it your dick.

1970: "I bet we'll have flying cars in the future"

2017: "Does necrophilia violate the NAP?"

Law doesn't have to come from a monopolistic state.

>oh nooo how will i ever recover

pic is giving me feels for some reason

>authority
whoa now that sounds like some kind of statist talk

True, but the authority of a state helps a lot. Laws come from the morality of a society, but they are successfully, systematically enforced with a designed class dealing with it, not the tribe elder or monarch.

There's no such a thing as an "owner of a body", once you die, you still exist, you're just unconcious and rotting, the NAP stands as long as your body still exists. Even though it won't be enforced it can still be violated. If it's ok to do anything to somebody as long as they don't notice it then it should be ok to fuck people in their sleep as long as they don't wake up during sex and don't notice anything once they wake up. Obviously that's fucked up and wrong and so is fucking dead people. You're violating the NAP by abusing the person's trust/wishes. Unless somebody gives you explicit permission you shouldn't do it. And even if they do then you shouldn't do it either, even if you're allowed to. That's nasty

OH
I should have said "The McPermission™®©"
My bad

it's not really law then is it? more of a suggestion really

You can't rape animals

That has nothing to do with the idea that law should be monopolized by the state.

Kek

I think it's more "there's no spirit to give or not give consent"

Just so we aren't confused here, what are you calling 'animal'?
The baby? The dead guy?

You'd rather it be monopolized by the monarch, tribe elder or whatever individual has the most authority in a group? If you are alone there are no laws, only self-imposed limits.

Does Lincoln still own property? Do dead indians in indigenous cemeteries still own the land?

What if I'm an atheist like most of the world at this point?
I don't believe in a soul, so the body might as well be unconscious...

fucking dead people is bad, pls OP stop

Actual animals. You're the one managing to mess this up in your head in ways that shouldn't be possible.

Bodies can't be raped either

fuck

I'd rather law be enforced on a decentralized basis than a centralized basis. Of course, a decentralized stateless society is highly improbable and remains entirely hypothetical.

The best solution is simply to have secession be universally legal.

Posting more ancap degeneracy. Tell me if this violates the NAP

>“Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return.

>“Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.”


Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York University Press, 1998)

>Suppose that there is a starvation situation, and the parent of the four year old child (who is not an adult) does not have enough money to keep him alive. A wealthy NAMBLA man offers this parent enough money to keep him and his family alive – if he will consent to his having sex with the child. We assume, further, that this is the only way to preserve the life of this four year old boy. Would it be criminal child abuse for the parent to accept this offer?
>Not on libertarian grounds. For surely it is better for the child to be a live victim of sexual abuse rather than unsullied and dead. Rather, it is the parent who consents to the death of his child, when he could have kept him alive by such extreme measures, who is the real abuser14
.
Walter Block

reasonpapers.com/pdf/26/rp_26_4.pdf

How do you obtain the corpse? Killing = NAP violation. Digging it up from a graveyard = NAP violation, too (since the graveyard will be privately owned).

Also, If the corpse was obtained from a person that died from natural corpses, and you somehow had it in your house, then you're actually free to do whatever you want with it as long as nobody finds out (just like with modern states). What happens when you're found out depends on the country/private covenant you live, if such covenant has rules pertaining necrophilia. You will most likely be ostracized by the rest of the mentally sane members of the private community.

So you want a democratic legal system? That doesn't work with hundreds, or thousands of people. You'd have too many daily cases, so that's why people are trained in society to deal with legal matters. If you feel you've been treated unjustly you can always take matter into your own hands, or appeal to authority for justice.

I don't really understand what sort of system you want in place. You either have a non-democratic system or you don't.

No, but they still own their body and the things that were buried with them. How do you feel about about people stealing king Tut's shit 3000 years after he died ? Was it ok for them to open the grave and take the shiny things with them ? Would it be ok to fuck the mummy ?

Animals can't consent because?

>the solution is to simply have the king give up his kingdom

A body can be owned if a person puts it in a living will.if you put a don't fuck my body in a will then it violates the NAP

Do you need to ask animals permission to mount them? To eat them? To have them guard your property or your sheep? Why is that?

>walk in the forest
>find a deas body

>be home
>grandma dies

>be in warzone
>neighborhood bombed

Many such cases

When you put what on your will? Giving ownership to someone else or "pla no fugging"?

Again, what exactly prevents you from doing that in a modern state? I assume you live in such country. You will suffer no penalty if you're not found out.

If you're found out, that depends on where you're found out. Just like in modern states.

If they don't own other property, why would they own this?

If king tut dislikes it he can sue people in a court of law

They certainly don't like to get eaten, not do plants or anything
Tell me, in Ancaptopia, does a baby and a dog have the same level of 'consent'?

Nor*

Just because no one finding about it in normal countries preventa punishment it doesn't mean the question is resolved.
In fact, how does someone who homesteads corpses and open a corpse brothel violates the NAP?

Yeah, when you take the NAP and property rights to the extreme, that's what happens.

However, the people that don't want to associate with niggers and want to live in a civilized society will most likely want to have rules against degeneracy and live in covenant-based societies.

Do wills have power under the NAP?

Do you violate the NAP when one of your corpses makes a customer sick?