>people have a right to have children, no matter their circumstances
>children have a right to food, clothing, and shelter
>you do not have a right to force others to pay for your child's food, clothing, and shelter
How can the above three statements be reconciled?
>People have a right to have children, no matter their circumstances
>No matter their circumstances
Pretty retarded desu, you should have children when your circumstances are good enough to provide the food, clothing and shelter that they're entitled to.
>You do not have a right to force others to pay for your child's food, clothing, and shelter
Makes sense. If you end up in the shitter because of lack of foresight or common sense, others shouldn't wipe your ass for you. Sucks for the kids, I guess.
>Pretty retarded desu, you should have children when your circumstances are good enough to provide the food, clothing and shelter that they're entitled to.
I agree, but I've had people say to me that having children is a universal right, and that I'm a bad person for questioning that.
If you cant take care of the children you lose the children. Im not really sure what the problem here is.
You're not a bad person for believing children should have appropriate conditions to live in, user. That's just common sense.
>you should have children when your circumstances are good enough
Then the people in power will exploit this since they dictate the circumstances, and humans become a slave race who breed and die according to their masters' orders that have nothing to do with the availability of resources.
I know.
I guess I'm really asking how people who hold these seemingly contradictory beliefs manage to do so, when to me they appear fundamentally incompatible.
Someone else then has to pay for the children's needs.
Really, the child should not have been created without enough unencumbered funds being available for their entire upbringing from the start, no?
Being free to decide whether to have children or not is a fundamental right under the US constitutional law.
So what? Not relevant here.
You can't. Right-wing political philosophy is full of basic flaws like this.
A right is not the same thing as a recommendation. If you want to force people to not have sex or get forced abortions, then good luck.
>people have a right to have children, no matter their circumstances
"No they don't"
The other two work themselves out.
>Right-wing political philosophy
Notu disu shitu againu
The world is endless suffering, there is no "right" to anything.
And "you should have x to do y" is super easy for the people who have x to deny it to others.
...
Pretty big jump in logic, baka.
You're pretty obtuse if you think what he said has anything to do with nihilism.
Then what is it?
is this a reddit thing
Do they have to be?
The first statement is blatantly false
The second statement has only been true for a century or two at most.
The last statement is weird. I assume you mean government using tax money for help parents who can't raise their own kids?
Cynicism? Edginess? Realism?
He made no claims about the meaning of anything, or lack thereof.
>have a right to
Considering that everyone and everything /pol/lacks don't agree with is branded as being from reddit, I suppose it might as well be.
>you do not have a right to force others to pay for your child's food, clothing, and shelter
The problem is when you live in any sort of developed state/community you have to delegate a certain amount of authority to that state.
Ultimately the state dictates the circumstances of your life (either directly by law or indirectly by controlling creating the economic climate, etc) so an ideal states should be responsible for making sure children do not starve.
Ultimately you cant have all three rights without a degree of anarchy, although the last one is worded quite stupidly.
>the world is suffering
>therefore there is no point to establishing rights
Seems like nihilism at least in part.
Which is funny because Reddit is basically /pol/ heaven.
They can't, positive rights are fucking stupid and basically just a reason for government to interfere with other countries/people's lives and possessions.
Like I think it'd be nice if everybody on this planet had clean water to drink, but world leaders signing a piece of paper does not make something a "right". Rights are things we are born with, like our genitalia, I have a right to my own genitalia, while I have to accrue water for myself.
>/HISTORY/
Saged
Reported
>Veeky Forums - History & HUMANITIES
>And Humanities.
How did you learn to write if you obviously can't read?
>>you do not have a right to force others to pay for your child's food, clothing, and shelter
That's not how rights work. Governments by definition determine the rights and privileges and entitlements of their subjects and citizens. Unless you're arguing that the government has an obligation to provide children with food and shelter, I don't understand what you're trying to do. As it stands, I can't think of a way to reconcile all that shit.
buddhism.
>As it stands, I can't think of a way to reconcile all that shit.
That's what I'm trying to say. You can't have all three.
>you do not have a right to force others to pay for your child's food, clothing, and shelter
Try and stop them.
>children have a right to food, clothing, and shelter
Food yes, the rest I think depends. The most fair right would be the right to live meaningfully within the society, which means clothes and shelter in most places, but also education and socialisation.
>you do not have a right to force others to pay for your child's food, clothing, and shelter
So orphans have to fend for themselves? And what if your circumstances change because of changes made controlled by the nation? Does you child now have no right to live?
Obviously not. A nation should at least be responsible for feeding its people.
>>you do not have a right to force others to pay for your child's food, clothing, and shelter
Except you do through government agencies, where do you think the majority of tax dollars go? Education? No, welfare.
Nah, because he isn't overtly saying rights are meaningless. It's defeatism more than nihilism.