18e6f5 No.253
Let us consider the "crimes" of:
1) Grave robbing (mugging the dead)
2) Necrophilia (raping the dead)
3) Cannibalizing those whom are already dead
Do any of these crimes count as coercion since the "victim" is no longer on this Earth?
02e8b1 No.254
The only way to harm the dead is to slander them. Perhaps if the grave/corpse was considered property of the next of kin, you could consider those crimes you listed as property violations.
9310bd No.260
bumo
1f432e No.261
After you lose consciousness, your estate still survives. Otherwise you could kill people who are sleeping because they're no longer a person.
In this case, a libertarian law would assume that the estate of a person didn't want to be mugged, fucked, or cannibalized by default much like how we assume that cutting open someone's clothes who's had a heart attack in order to resuscitate them doesn't violate the NAP, or that you have to pay at a restaurant after you eat.
What the estate defaults to depends on social norms. The estate still survives, therefore a libertarian law would still disallow grave robbing, necrophilia, and cannibalism by default.
18e6f5 No.265
>>261>Otherwise you could kill people who are sleeping because they're no longer a person.The very fact that you used the word "kill" outlines why the estate survives…because the person survives. When we can definitively say that a person is completely gone, surely they become fair game to all action because no victim exists any longer.
3f7bdf No.267
Who cares if they count as coercion or not? The question, as for any law in an ancap society, is "how much would you be willing to pay for it to be a crime?" My answer is "not very much".
62c295 No.270
>>267A good point. We often get caught up in the philosophical debate that we forget that proper law is ultimately just custom and usage.
5b489a No.320
>>254i agree with this anon. when someone dies it falls on the family of the deceased to take care of the remains. the family has to pay to house the body and then pay again for a coffin a burial plot and a headstone. grave robbing apart from the actual theft also includes a destruction of property of the coffin, the plot and sometimes the headstone. ultimately in a world of anarchy it would be up to the discretion of the family. if bob has one remaining relative and bob dies and his relative rapes and eats him then I'm not sure there would be an issue there. but if some schmoe tried to rape/rob/eat any of my deceased relatives you can bet there'd be two bodies in that grave real quick.
ffab07 No.340
>>320But would the aggressor's corpse subject to the same principle? Would you return it to their kin?
ffab07 No.341
18ecdf No.342
All of those situations sound extremely circumstantial. I would say there's no ultimate answer to those questions, as we have a lot of other miscellaneous details to cover.
e.g.:
In terms of grave robbery, how long are we talking? Are we talking about an area being used or an area that is long and forgotten?
Necrophilia:
Ultimately, I think the answer depends on whether or not the corpse has immediate family.
Cannibalizing:
On the surface, no. however, there are a lot of other factors that could come into play as to its legitimization. Next of kin? Lovers? Fans?