It doesn't violate the NAP after all. How do you respond, pol?.
>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.
Dellamorte, Dellamore is a damned fine motion picture.
Christopher Morgan
True, necrophillia does not violate the NAP. However, does it change the fact that it is some sick shit? No.
Reason, why does one not eat their own poop? Answer: it's fucking bad.
Why does one not fuck rotting (or not) corpses? Answer: fucking bad for you(r) cock and mentality.
Jason Allen
should it be illegal tho?
Caleb Ward
Only if the family members or gaurdians of the body appointed by the will consent. Else, no. Also why would you do it you sick fuck, your never allowed on my property again.
Jason Turner
what if they don't own the body tho? who transferred it's property to them?
I mean, in a NAP-following society, there could be thousands of jobs created in the necrobrothel industry
Jaxson Miller
Using that same logic you could justify raping someone in a coma because they're are in a state of unconsciousness.
>Occurrences of the syndrome are extremely rare and the causes are not well understood. One hypothesis for the phenomenon is that a chief factor (though not the only one) is the buildup of pressure in the chest as a result of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The relaxation of pressure after resuscitation efforts have ended is thought to allow the heart to expand, triggering the heart's electrical impulses and restarting the heartbeat.[2] Other possible factors are hyperkalemia or high doses of epinephrine.[5]
If a person "dies" for 1 minute, then by your logic he loses all his property regardless if he will come back to life.
Ian Anderson
>A 66-year-old man suffering from a suspected abdominal aneurysm who, during treatment for this condition, suffered cardiac arrest and received chest compressions and defibrillation shocks for 17 minutes. Vital signs did not return; the patient was declared dead and resuscitation efforts ended. Ten minutes later, the surgeon felt a pulse. The aneurysm was successfully treated and the patient fully recovered with no lasting physical or neurological problems
In those 10 minutes the man is considered "dead" you have you way with him, then he comes back to life. Did you violate the NAP? If you think no, then you can use the same logic to rape those in a coma.
Owen Rivera
>It doesn't violate the NAP If they're buried on my dirt I'll fucking kill you. If they're my relatives, I'll fucking kill you. If they're not my relatives, I'll find their relatives and get their permission to fucking kill you and get paid for my trouble.
Welcome to ANCAP motherfucker.
Josiah Butler
If there is no will the body gets transferred to immediate family.
Blake Peterson
>being in a coma and being dead are the same thing
really makes you think
Thomas Richardson
Absolutely not! Thank you for using merits and reasoning for your argument. This is why I love Libertarianism.
Justin Garcia
but this is according to the state's law, and the state has no right to create legislation that violates the nap or enforcing it on the people if they don't consent to it
Bentley Anderson
...
Kayden Rodriguez
No, because people in a coma are STILL ALIVE
Useless nigger
Alexander Harris
There is no interpretation of Ancap that days ownership isn't transfered to immediate family unless other wise stated in a will.
Carson Howard
>somebody does not violate the nap >you murder them therefore violating the NAP
that's a no-no in ancapistan friendo
Camden Richardson
there's no interpretation that says this
Unless the dead person explicitly made it clear (verbally or in written) they wanted their body to be owned by their family, it goes back to the state of nature
of course if someone owns the body, they might decide what happens to it, but A explicitly says nobody owns the bodies he's talking about
James Rodriguez
Another question.
A man establishes a trust to maintain his corpse until sufficient technology exists that can revive him. Until such technology exists are you claiming he does not own his body? Certainly to him violating his corpse would be a violation of the NAP.
Now consider a man who does the same thing but establishes a trust to revive one random person once there exists sufficient technology to do so. This randomness means every single dead person has a non-zero chance of being revived many years into the future. Thus, violating their corpse is also a violation of the NAP because there is a non-zero possibility they will be revived.
Now consider that establishing this trust need not happen, but simply needs a non-zero chance of happening. This too leads to a non-zero chance that a random dead person will be revived when such technology exists.
Thus, necrophilia is a violation of the NAP in all cases except if the dead person themselves wrote a contract consenting to such a thing explicitly.
Hunter Rodriguez
Ok for practical purposes, wills should be enforced.
Blake Harris
So if I die for 1 minute then come back to life I lose all my property? What kinda of bullshit is that?
Nicholas Thomas
I like how you ignored this There are literally cases of people coming back to life after death
Wyatt Carter
so gengis still owns all his land and we should tear down all of america because we're violating dead injuns NAPs?
do you realize how retardedly you have to argue to defend this?
and in this case the people he left in charge of the body own it, while we're explicitly talking about bodies whose previous owners didn't let under anyone's responsibility
William Lee
You have yet to answer to the fact that a person can come back to life after death. Looks like you're not a curious ancap, you're just a degenerate trying to rationalize your degeneracy.
Tyler Rogers
/thread
Nicholas Gray
when he's alive he owns his body
yet this somehow means ole martha who died and is still pretty much fucking dead somehow "owns" a body after death?
Does she also own her house, car, and property too, shill?
Christopher Reed
No. If that were the case, then all the property should be returned to you IMMEDIATELY or it is theft, thus violating the NAP.
If you die it should be like you took a perment trip, thus all your property rights are void.
If you die then RETURN, it's like you going for a quick trip and coming back. Your soul coming back into your body reinstates your right to own property and have all your property returned to you.
Zachary Wright
>go on vacation >some niggers come into your house and destroy it >come back Clearly this is a violation of the NAP
>die >some degenerate rapes your corpse >come back How is this not a violation of the NAP?
Dominic Bailey
Ah, so you have no problems violating the NAP to satisfy your fetish.
Daniel Richardson
>Does she also own her house, car, and property too, shill? Yes, if a person does not explicitly sign a will delegating their property to someone else then they still own it after death. Stealing their property is a violation of the NAP
Owen Howard
not really, he's basically saying death is irrelevant because XdDDDD some people get ressurrected after 10 minutes, so therefore death is literally meaningless when it comes to property rights
yet he magically ignores this when it comes to any other kind of property, and will not fuck off the land he lives on, violating native americans NAPs
It's an ad hoc rationalization to justify the fact he wants to ban something he dislikes yet there's literally nothing in his belief system that would make it a violation of anyone's NAP.
You can see this by how this logic doesn't apply to anything else
Ryan Barnes
Fuck off the US then you NAP violator.
Asher Sanders
Because when you die, nobody knows when nor IF you will comeback.
But that is a good point, maybe this should fall under a category called a "Retroactive NAP Violation" and thus you shouldn't have sex with a dead corpse for at least 20 minutes.
>some degenerate rapes your corpse It's not rape because you're dead, rape only applies to alive people. It's necrophillia. Learn to word.
Daniel Gomez
>20 minutes I've heard of people coming back after half an hour before.
Asher Garcia
So it's ok to violate the NAP if people can't defend their property?
John Reed
Ok two paths:
a) you're really nice and wait an hour then have sex with the corpse. You can say "I gave him/her a chance to come back" but it didn't pan out.
b) you be a real dick and stab the person in the heart making sure they are permanently dead. Yeah that's a jerk thing to do but because they're dead it doesn't violate the NAP.
Michael Roberts
We caught an edgelord goth faggot doing this in highschool, shit didnt work out so well for him. Graverobbing, corpse fucking retards should be shot.
Thomas Ross
>Yeah that's a jerk thing to do but because they're dead it doesn't violate the NAP. How is that not a violation of the NAP? By making it impossible to revive them you directly committed an act of aggression against them. Furthermore, where the fuck does it state property rights end after death?
Chase Diaz
fuck your nap you sick fuck
Kevin Martin
Real libertarians agree: necrophilia should be legal
Jack is Jill's father. Jakes goes out to walk and has a stroke. Does Jill get to live in Jack's house and drive his car and sell both? Yes or no shill?
Lucas Davis
Welp, glad im not a libertarian then.
Bentley Torres
man, virgins can be so desperate sometimes
Samuel Ortiz
Suppose somebody goes on a year long vacation and somebody takes their stuff while they're gone. Has the NAP been violated? What if they died for a year and came back?
Lincoln Lopez
It depends on the will
By your own logic you state >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.
So your own logic states that Jill cannot inherit anything at all from her father if he didn't write a will.
Jonathan Watson
Why? Because they will defend this? This isn't a pro-necrophilia thread, this is a libertarian-hate thread same as the other fag
By that logic every dead person in human history should still own their shit, and every single principle of law should be changed to accomodate the fact that dead people already own everything
Joseph Brooks
fucking ancaps i swear you deserve a worst punishment than pagans
Aiden Gomez
Friendly reminder that property only exists as a guarantee by the nation.
Cooper Adams
let's say you die. Someone digs your corpse out from the grave and takes you back to their rape dungeon . Then they defile your liveless corpse until you begin to decompose and get infested with maggots. Would you like that? Even if you are thinking "i doesn't matter because i will be dead", it's a pretty huge deal, more of meta kind of thing. You wouldn't like someone messing with everything you worked hard to achieve while you were alive, so why think differentley about your corpse?
i know this a "you wouldn't like it if it hapened to you, therefore i'ts wrong" argument, but eh, just what i thought about this deal.
Who needs corpses with sex robots anyway?
Grayson Morgan
You're planning on fucking dead bodies aren't you Dahmer? Are you going to start out on road kill first?
Ryder Diaz
NAP isn't a fucking law you retard it is a moral principle >laws in ancapistan
Mason Thompson
This is why taking the liberals refugees is a big mistake for every movement.
I say we both this nu pol generates to the stake and be done with it.
Of course necrophilia should and always will be illegal you dumb fuck
Asher Morgan
NO THEY ARE DEAD! Dead people aren't beholded to the NAP
If they can be revived, then likely they are in a hospital moron...Now depending on the hospital, the better ones will treat you as if you ARE alive and thus not have sex with your corpse or make sure your dead when you die. Chances are THOSE hospitals charge a premium for THAT service.
You are entitled to go to a cheaper hospital, but then they might not provide the same "after death services" other hospitals require.
Brayden Lewis
Stop addressing the conclusion and start addressing the argument.
Chase Thompson
It's the opposite shill. Can't you read the OP? Not a single logical argument so you have to keep this ad hoc bullshit?
If someone doesn't leave his things to others than no one owns it. If someone has a will he's obviously not included in the question asked in OP, which is about people who do not have wills.
You are saying people without wills still have property rights even after death, so YOU should fuck off your property because a bunch of spooky ghosts own it already.
The position in the OP says that if Jill drives Jack's car and lives in his house she's effectively homesteading it and so taking ownership
Daniel Murphy
It's on par with scat in my opinion, so no unless the diseases and consequences start making their way into mainstream society.
Elijah Morris
I hope that you a) die of aids you uselss nigger or b) set foot on my property (after I warned you not to) therefore violating the NAP and thus leaving me to torture you to death.
Dominic Harris
Charges a premium not to fuck your corpse, damn imma go check my itemized bill for that one.
Xavier Hall
>Dead people aren't beholded to the NAP SAYS WHO? A dead person cannot protect their property that certainly is true, but taking their property is still theft if they did not delegate it to you in a will.
Henry Gomez
>It doesn't violate the NAP after all.
Yeah it does, your body is your property. Unless you consent for someone to let someone fuck your corpse then they're literally violating your property.
>But you're dead so you don't own anything.
Bullshit, when I die my property has to be treated as I deem fit according to my will it doesn't suddenly become finders keepers just because I'm dead.
Juan Turner
I'm not an AnCap you retard. I'm using your own fucking logic to prove that the NAP forbids necrophillia in most cases. You're are one dumb motherfucker.
Juan Phillips
The argument is ridiculous in itself because it assumes bullshit.
If someone magically becomes two persons, do both of them own his shit?
If Louis XIV ressurrected, would he get to live in his palace?
There's no argument but "xDDDD being dead is just like taking a walk in the park"
If you shills can't understand the difference between dying and going to Cambodia, that's not my problem
Sebastian Foster
/thread
Kill the degenerate on sight fuck you op
Gabriel Perry
There is a non-zero chance that one day we will discover a way to bring any body back to life.
Jaxon Hughes
Bump for creative content.
Brandon Jones
>You are saying people without wills still have property rights even after death Yes, because if a person can come back to life 10 minutes after death you are claiming they lose all their property in the meanwhile.
Benjamin Perry
>that's a no-no in ancapistan Less of a no-no than fucking a corpse. ANCAPistan is mob justice. We'll see who comes out the other end with all of their limbs still attached.
Jace Gutierrez
you're not using any logical argument you absolute fucking faggot, and as I have proven, you can't even read the OP and understand it without spewing bullshit
You're arguing, effectively, that there's no difference between dead and alive with respect to law. Even a 5 yo child can make more sense He explicitly says there's no will in this situation.
Noah Richardson
Property exists so long as it is defended. In a society with laws the laws protect property as a function of the state's monopoly on violence.
In a society without laws the threat of violence still serves to protect property only in this case it is the individual's responsibility to protect what they own.
In the case of a gun toting American like myself, my property is still defended in the absence of the law in the case of a declawed Swedish sheep, it is not.
Jace Gray
If you die without providing for your disposal, the medical school gets to have their way with you. Guess the conversation centerpiece, BTW.
Kevin Carter
Your moral principle can't handle cloning or reviving the dead, or any kind of difficult question, so what good is it?
Gabriel Lopez
Death is just a meme xDDDD
Colton Young
The dead body is buried/cremated/whatever as determined by the executor of the estate in a manner consistent with the will and state law.
Brayden Miller
So what? Then when you die, you can will your body to a SCIENCE PLACE that will offer the appropriate "post-death services" that living people have. Accordingly, you will be asked to pay (or not to pay if they are really really nice) for those services!
Those without the money will unfortunately, be faced with the reality that their corpse will be perma-murdered and fucked.
If you don't want that, make some more money or will your body to trusted friends and family who will keep your body-property from being perma-murdered and fucked.
Problem solved.
John Adams
You're one dumb motherfucker, NAP is a moral principle not a fucking law. Property rights extend after death When you own property you can declare non-ownership of property. However, until you declare non-ownership of property it remains your property. Thus even if you don't write a will the default state is still ownership, not non-ownership. To give up your property after death, you must explicitly state it in your will, otherwise you still own it in death.
Adrian Robinson
Only if you were allowed to by immediate family
Jayden Ward
>He explicitly says there's no will in this situation.
So what?
Consent to use my corpse as a fuck toy hasn't been granted.
That's like assuming that you can walk on to my land because I don't have a no trespassing sign up.
Camden Howard
Property is enforced through violence. I am willing to defend my property with deadly violence.
Carter Myers
Anarc capitalism then >What if the child consented?
Anarc capitalism today >What if the corpse consented?
Josiah Baker
there is no word in entish, elvish or the tongues of men to describe your levels of degenracy, kill yourself faggot, the only thing worse than necrophilia is pedophilia
Justin Sullivan
Nice trips
Charles Martin
>Friendly reminder that property only exists as a guarantee by the nation. Property exists as an abstract concept with no tangible form other than that which is declared as property. Property, like laws, only exists because people believe that it exists. Without a government to define property rights through legislation the concept of property still exists in the same capacity, but a lack of enforcement causes it to lose what little influence on reality it has.
ANCAPs assert that since you can define property without a government that government is not necessary to protect property. This is both true and false, depending on how you look at it, since one kind of armed thug is just as good as another whether they wear a badge or not.
ANCAPs, like libertarians, have no appreciation for the fact that taxes, while extorted from the population, are set by that population via the legislature. They equate it all to a criminal enterprise, because it functions much like one. Republics have always functioned in that way. Just look at the Brethren of the Coast. Look at the SPQR. In the absence of those bodies only despots remain. Anarchy is not a sustainable state.
Oliver Perez
There is a non-zero chance of ANY body being revived (coming back from its long vacation). When they do come back, will their NAP have been violated by a rapist or not?
>Problem solved. The problem is not solved, it is avoided
Ryan Young
Necrobrothel? Please tell if you came up with that yourself. I know some people that can make it happen if there is a demand.
-Some Random Chaos God
Nolan Rodriguez
NO the problem IS solved.
-When you die, you give up your property rights to all your property (even your body) -If you come back to life through some miracle of science, then you get back your property rights! -In between the time you died till you come back to life you have no property rights. Thus your property will have no owner and your body can be fucked (again, it's not RAPE because you have no consciousness to grant consent). -If you wake up and you've been fuck a) it wasn't rape b) no violation of the NAP has occurred.
At first I was thinking about a Retroactive NAP Violation,, but that is a complicated issue with I think two points of thought. One cruel path and one compassionate path with no right answer.
Here's thought for you Kiwi. Supposed you can't bring back to life a biological body but you can recapture their soul in an AI body. What do?
Ethan Lee
Necrophilia would be an interesting application of Gunther von Hagens' plastination technique. You could make a corpse into a permanently preserved, odor and rot-free sex doll.
Cameron Young
>When you die, you give up your property rights to all your property (even your body) Bullshit, according to who? I never consented to such a thing. You can rationalize it all you want, it's still a violation of the NAP
Christopher Howard
What kind of bullshit reified abstractions do you need to misinterpret property rights like some people in this thread? Rights are the reciprocal needs of rational beings. Dead people are not rational beings, they don't have fucking rights.
Xavier Wilson
>If you come back to life through some miracle of science, then you get back your property rights!
That's like saying if I build a house and come back a year later, it's ok for someone to rape it because i'm not using it. In fact, that's an argument a Marxist would make.
Marxists support necrophillia because when you're dead you're not using the body, so someone else has the right to use it. AnCaps, however, if they follow the NAP are forbidden from doing such a thing.
Jaxon Torres
Fuck off Marxist, just because I don't use my body after death doesn't give you the right to rape it
Jeremiah Morris
>-Some Random Chaos God t. Lord Baelish
Brody Rivera
Ok you nigger, why do we have wills to begin with? So your property passes to who you want becasue a) you don't own it anymore beacuse b) YOU'RE FUCKING DEAD.
But let's hear your rationale Kangz. Why no NAP violation???
Nicholas Edwards
A dead person cannot consent, thus what you are doing is rape.
Matthew Mitchell
It does moron, that's why there are wills to allow your body to pass to who you want to own it after you fucking die.
Carter Gray
A fleshlight cannot consent, thus what you are doing is rape.
Daniel Morgan
>Property rights extend after death again, leave your country
Ian Sanchez
oh do I have news for you
i saw it on a libertarian forum before
Angel Watson
The difference is leaf that the body once had the ability to consent and cannot any long. You can fuck a rock or a treestump, sure its weird but they never could consent in the first place. If you fuck a dead body or a living one without consent, that is rape.
John Rodriguez
No it fucking doesn't. If there is no will then a person continues to own their property, the purpose of a will is to codify the transfer of property in a contract.
You retards are literally arguing the default state of property after death is finders keepers, that's wrong.
If I leave my house, and someone breaks in, it's a violation of the NAP whether I come back home in 1 year or 1000 years.
Lucas Williams
he's either retarded or using whatever bs argument he can m8, give up a dead person cannot consent, therefore burying them is false imprisonment
Cooper Williams
>comparing the corpse of a human being to an inanimate object The mind of an ANCAP is a terrible place. Not only do they entertain such hypothetical comparisons but they accept them just as easily. I almost want to explain that all forms of value and meaning are created by individual actors and that the corpse of a human being would, by and large, be regarded as something that was not merely an inanimate object to be used for one's own pleasure.
This is the Last Man that Nietzsche warned us about. Complete degeneration, the reduction of all things to their most basic and ruthless purpose. Woe unto the world where corpse fuckers are not strung up by their feet and lashed until dead.