L.A. Liberty

Consensual Cannibalism

libertarians-and-stoya:

andrewfriedle:

Also, Praxeology.

Do people have the right to donate their body to science? Or fertilize a tree with their remains? Or sell a kidney? Or be spread in the ocean? Why not donate yourself to be a cannibal’s meal? I don’t see the issue.

I discussed consensual cannibalism in an earlier draft of my Alienable Rights post, but I guess it never made it to the final draft.

As I said in that post:

Since our self-ownership is absolute, does that not then naturally mean we can ‘rent’ our bodies, our minds, and our time for labor or recreation and anything in between? Does owning our selves not mean we can harm ourselves in any way, we can ingest anything, touch anything, and do anything that harms no one but ourselves. If we own our lives, can we not choose to sell, donate, or waste portions of our bodies - a finger, a kidney, an eye, lungs - as we do our time? If our lives and our bodies are our own, can we not end them?

So why stop at donations, Nate? If a man is an absolute self-owner, he owns his body to the extent that he may not only give, but also sell or even destroy all or part of it for whatever reason.

I can’t imagine such a scenario would be very popular, of course. Not only do potential cannibals make up a tiny fraction of the overall population (making demand very low), but I imagine supply would be fairly inelastic. In other words, it is unlikely that the supply (willing donors/sellers) would be very high no matter the price offered - especially when one considers that a society free enough to not interfere with something as generally objectionable as consensual cannibalism, would also make it easier for people to sell and donate their various bits and giblets for far greater (and more demanded) purposes.

(Source: greetingsfrompennsylvania)

Posted June 4, 2012 at 10:38pm in ∆ | comments || home