23:04 < pupnik> You live in the USA?
23:04 < zapster> yes
23:04 < zapster> they have a constitution that works--ours obviously doesn't 
                 or we wouldn't be a kleptocracy now
23:04 < pupnik> Are you arguing that the US government is constitutional?
23:05 < zapster> heh..according to the constitution we have, yeah
23:06 < zapster> they just lopped off most of the bill of rights
23:06 < zapster> which was added by the people, not business of course
23:06 < zapster> so it had to go
23:07 < pupnik> You are incorrect, the US has been drifting from 
                constitutional legitimacy since the ink was dry.
23:08 < pupnik> I do agree that recent injuries to the bill of rights are 
                criminal though
23:08 < zapster> part of the problem is that it's continually presented as 
                 "inviolable"--and venezuela keeps rewriting theirs until they 
                 get it right
23:08 < pupnik> But that has more to do with the exigencies of an empire and a 
                tyrannical government, than the desires of capitalists.
23:08 < zapster> there's a lot to be said for that
23:09 < pupnik> From the social-democratic ideology yes, not from an ideology 
                of freedom and natural rights.
23:09 < zapster> there aren't any natural rights
23:09 < pupnik> In the latter, there are tenets which may not be violated by 
                democratic vote.
23:10 < zapster> only the ones you wrest from the powerful
23:10 < pupnik> I agree that those rights must be vigorously defended, but 
                according to logic, there are rights inherent in conscious 
                being.
23:11 < zapster> the powerful disagree
23:11 < zapster> so they're not inherent, evidently
23:12 < pupnik> People are born with eyes.  If someone gouges out your eye, 
                that doesn't change the fact that you are born with eyes.
23:13 < pupnik> i find this idea that rights are granted by government to be 
                dangerous and ill concieved
23:14 < zapster> if you are outnumbered by people that don't believe you have 
                 rights, you are a slave
23:14 -!- MILOSEVIC is now known as jumpatrain
23:14 < pupnik> A slave whose rights are being denied.
23:14 < zapster> denied, nonexistent--functionally there is no difference
23:14 < pupnik> Your argument leads to the conclusion that slaves not only can 
                not exercise their rights, but they do not have any.
23:15 < zapster> you can believe whatever you want, but it's no more than 
                 fantasy
23:15 < pupnik> And if you do not have any rights that are being denied, 
                there's no reason to restore anything that isn't yours to                      begin with.
23:15 < zapster> if slaves cannot fight off slavery their rights don't exist
23:15 < pupnik> Ah so my rights are determined by what I can take by force?
23:15 < zapster> and if no one else will defend their rights
23:16 < pupnik> So if i rape the next little boy that passes by, that's my 
                right?
23:16 < zapster> not if someone locks you up for it
23:16 < zapster> which is why we set up governments
23:16 < pupnik> You see how your philosophy is cancerous
23:16 < zapster> no..it's realist
23:16 < pupnik> Say i could get away with it, then it becomes my right.        23:16 < zapster> simply look at history
23:16 < pupnik> Your definition of rights is meaningless.
23:16 < zapster> look at somalia
23:16 < pupnik> It voids the word.
23:17 < zapster> women have no rights against rape there because they cannot 
                 defend against it
23:17 < zapster> and nobody is doing a damn thing about it
23:17 < pupnik> Ok it's a semantic discussion.  I find your choice of 
                definition to be useless.
23:17 < zapster> they're so-called "natural" rights do not exist there
23:19 < pupnik> Further discussion would involve repetition of points you have 
                not grasped.
23:19 < pupnik> Have a nice day.