From: S
Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 4:36 AM
To: Walter Block <[email protected]>
Subject: Follow-up question on your blog post

Greetings, dear Professor Block!

I have seen a recent post of yours about libertarian view in regard of dead bodies:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/who-should-own-dead-bodies/

A question arises, how are property rights over dead body defined? It’s obvious that original owner – once dead – is gone. Letʼs suppose that he/she has not expressed his/her will in regard of who shall be the owner of the dead body. Who can claim the body and on which grounds in libertarian framework? It may be common sense to say that immediate relatives can claim it, but what if no such relatives exist or are interested in acquiring such possession?

Another related question is that once someone by default has such property rights or acquires these from original owner by means of voluntary exchange, he/she should be able to do whatever he/she pleases with this new property (as long as it does not violate others’ property rights). Current, non-libertarian law is inconsistent here, as dead bodies are viewed neither as subjects of the law nor as legal property. (Well, in fact even living bodies are not accepted as property of each human being – say, in many countries voluntary prostitution or voluntary suicide are illegal, which is a violation of individual property rights by the state.) Am I right to suggest, that a dead body is an object of property, and once the owner is defined, it is perfectly fine to use such body in whatever manner conceivable – be it for medical experiments, sexual pleasure, sale to third parties, religious rituals or cooking a meal from it?

Best regards, S

From: Walter Block <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 9:14 AM

To: S

Subject: RE: Follow-up question on your blog post

Dear S:

Thanks for your important question/challenge

Murray Rothbard once wrote about homeless bums. Who would help them if they were mugged? Who would avenge them if they were murdered? His answer was twofold. One, these acts must necessarily occur on someone’s property, since under anarchocapitalism, all property would be owned (apart from the submarginal, which no one wants). So, the owner would likely take umbrage at any of his “tenants’” rights being violated. Two, for people who couldn’t afford to pay rent, there would be private charity, “friends of bums.”

I answer your question based on Murray’s as usual brilliant insights. In the free society, an cap, no government, people would anticipate such challenges, problems and solve them. The heirs of the deceased would take care of them. There would be private charities that would come to the rescue of those dead bodies who would otherwise be subjected to the insults, mal-treatment, you mention.

Would this work perfectly? No. Nothing touched by human beings can be perfect. The utilitarian question is, under which system are the indignities you mention less likely to occur. With an all-loving government, or, predicated upon the Non Aggression Principle of libertarianism. I say the latter.

Best regards,

Walter

The Best of Walter E. Block