He's inactive anyway. Just a lil FYI.

"Hey, leader all around the world don't condone it, even when Guerilla type warfare was far read in these regions (_____), there where still a lot of buisness creating jobs"

What? Wanna try again?

Leaders all around the world don't condone what? Food? Huh? What? Are you serious?

Guerrilla warfare was "far read" in what regions? What does it being "far read" mean? What does it have to do with food? What are you talking about?

There "where still a lot of buisness creating jobs"? What does that mean? Did you mean that there was still a lot of job creation, despite the existence of food? What's the relevance of job creation to this topic? What does guerrilla warfare have to do with food and job creation?

"There wasn't a lot of pay, it destroyed a lot of forest lands, and a lot of people in the surronding area developed early stages that showed the signes of cancer. "

Wasn't a lot of pay for what?

What destroyed a lot of forest lands?

Lots of people get cancer all over the world. Are you suggesting that food caused abnormally high races of cancer? Where? What food? Why is all of this information missing from your post?

"Central & Southern America's people have all seen the horror's from the cause and effect from expansion into untoucthed territories in space. "

We've all seen Alien and even Aliens, mate. It's not just Central and Southern Americans' fear!!

I'm sorry I passed you off as an obvious troll before. But, as we can see, you left out a huge amount of information in your post above. Many of your statements were literally meaningless, having no subjects and frequently referring to pronoun objects which you never named. If you could do us all a favor and make sense, I'd be happy to respond to your legitimate, non-trolling post!

I think, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever even suggesting the most remote possibility of this thread's topic having anything to do with reality...

Who cares?

[Rule 13]

[Rule 13]

"The flaw is with your insistence that political ideas be justified with these mysterious normative truths."

The idea of rights can be defined other than as mysterious normative truths. You've made it clear you have no interest in actually discussing the idea of rights, so it's awkward that you are, here, pretending to have actually made any argument against them. You haven't even addressed the way they're classically defined, let alone alternate definitions (based in pragmatism, maximizing worker motivation, justice, etc.) which could essentially provide people with these same freedoms by other justifications/rationales.

"The strong do what they can, the weak suffer what they must. Tired of the strong? Form a coalition and destroy them. That's my political philosophy."

That's like the political philosophy of a small child. You're proposing that mob rule is best. It's not stable, let alone anything else. You're arguing for authoritarians and fascists. The strong always achieve power, and they often move toward fascism in a desperate attempt to keep it. It's not stable. It's not just. And it sucks for 99.9% of members of such societies without strong culture, laws, and law enforcement limiting government power.

"My argument is forceful if enough people are willing to form a coalition and assert these liberties."

Until they achieve any power and force their "liberties" on others who see them as oppression. Take paying for trash's birth control, for instance. You demand it. Others demand not to be forced to pay for it.

How can your arguments be flawless? You've barely made any, and you've made none for your biggest claims in this thread.

What empirical basis do you have for valuing your liberty? Many oppressive means result in more productive individuals, forced to spend more time engaged in actions which enrich the state! This can empirically be measured beneficial!

You've not based your statements in this thread in anything remotely empirical, just your personal preference that contraception be OTC (presumably? you were vague) and that no laws interfere with it (and those on the books, presumably, be struck down). Care to offer us a rational explanation of how any empirical line of thought brought you to these preferences? Explanations and conclusions are much more useful in discussion than preferences and contradictions.

It's hilarious how you redefine "rights" like a communist--as a positive good that must be produced for a person. Nobody believes in "rights" by this definition, the word is just misused this way in communist talking-points to hijack the otherwise meaningful language and muddy the waters of discourse. This is offensive to the English language. If you really want to explain that you don't believe in rights, I suggest responding to what the word actually means. None of the rights classically described (and made law in the USA) are "rights" by the nonsense definition you cited here, and you're hardly explaining why you disagree with the idea by referencing something else entirely.

If you believe in technocracy and democracy without inherent civil rights and limitations of government power, you have no basis for complaints about the policies this leads to. You don't believe you have any inherent right to the things you demand, so you're essentially just whining about the results [in this instance] of the unlimited government which you support. Good stuff.

His platform is filled with hypocrisy.

Zarf BeebleBrix, I demand your immediate resignation! Oh wait, we couldn't possibly care about any insane thing he had to say. Nevermind the above. I meant "thanks."

There is nothing hypocritical about the concept of inalienable rights. Bloody commie.

The Yell,

Succession? I'm in.

Justinian I,

Your proposal isn't exactly liberal.

One might consider it rather culturally (socially) conservative. Your idea would be hypocritical, outlawing the idea of itself.

Sure. It's encouraged. It's hard to find anything else.

But what you can't have is children who can have kids in a few years.