Comments on: Analog Dilemma: Public Displays of…Cannibalism? http://unrforliberty.com/2009/08/analog_dilemma5.html Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:46:30 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Travis Hagen http://unrforliberty.com/2009/08/analog_dilemma5.html/comment-page-1#comment-503 Travis Hagen Tue, 25 Aug 2009 07:38:39 +0000 http://unrforliberty.com/?p=705#comment-503 If consenting people want to eat each other I don't see any problem with it. It doesn't violate anybody's rights (because you can totally consensually surrender rights, see Murderpark), so to ban consensual cannibalism would be to apply some arbitrary value that says "Cannibalism is wrong" to the general public, which is wrong. <br><br>There is no such thing as a public place, somebody owns this park, and it's up to them to post the "No munching on people" sign if they don't want it to happen. If they continue to eat each other despite this, then of course there is a problem which can be dealt with. <br><br>Animals are property, they can be used at will. If consenting people want to eat each other I don't see any problem with it. It doesn't violate anybody's rights (because you can totally consensually surrender rights, see Murderpark), so to ban consensual cannibalism would be to apply some arbitrary value that says “Cannibalism is wrong” to the general public, which is wrong.

There is no such thing as a public place, somebody owns this park, and it's up to them to post the “No munching on people” sign if they don't want it to happen. If they continue to eat each other despite this, then of course there is a problem which can be dealt with.

Animals are property, they can be used at will.

]]> By: Travis Hagen http://unrforliberty.com/2009/08/analog_dilemma5.html/comment-page-1#comment-398 Travis Hagen Tue, 25 Aug 2009 01:38:39 +0000 http://unrforliberty.com/?p=705#comment-398 If consenting people want to eat each other I don't see any problem with it. It doesn't violate anybody's rights (because you can totally consensually surrender rights, see Murderpark), so to ban consensual cannibalism would be to apply some arbitrary value that says "Cannibalism is wrong" to the general public, which is wrong. <br><br>There is no such thing as a public place, somebody owns this park, and it's up to them to post the "No munching on people" sign if they don't want it to happen. If they continue to eat each other despite this, then of course there is a problem which can be dealt with. <br><br>Animals are property, they can be used at will. If consenting people want to eat each other I don't see any problem with it. It doesn't violate anybody's rights (because you can totally consensually surrender rights, see Murderpark), so to ban consensual cannibalism would be to apply some arbitrary value that says “Cannibalism is wrong” to the general public, which is wrong.

There is no such thing as a public place, somebody owns this park, and it's up to them to post the “No munching on people” sign if they don't want it to happen. If they continue to eat each other despite this, then of course there is a problem which can be dealt with.

Animals are property, they can be used at will.

]]>