there's a side issue tho, at least rn, that dead bodies as far as i understand aren't really... the property of anyone? not even the body itself. it's dead.I'm a libertarian who believes very strongly in personal choice and self-ownership, as well as the nonagression principle. Treating other people's bodies as a resource to be mined is anathema to me on multiple levels. Organ donation is beautiful when it's voluntary done by a living donor, or when it's done by a deceased person's kin in loving memory of them. Ignoring the consent factor reduces the 'donor' from a person to a bag of spare parts and is abhorrent.
they're, like, dead. they're gone. the person that's now a body doesn't exist anymore, its connection to the living person is mostly just resemblance. i'm all for allowing people their ceremonial wishes, but we're in a situation here where the bodies have no concrete use anymore, they don't legally belong to anyone, but certain uses of it are blocked because of legal rights protecting it in a weird veil of sentimentality.
i'm not actually arguing for universal donorship btw. i'm just pointing out that like - universal donorship is not against the nonagression principle, and it doesn't actually violate anyone's property. at least it's like that in current legislation in the west (in general). so i'm asking - how does this interweave with your view?