So the valuation of these rights as paramount is based on nothing empirical or universal, but is rather your own personal priority given to these values?

You'll have to develop on those answers much more than that. 

That's it?

Fail forum edit, Arby3!

@Spock

I'm not saying there's hypocrisy in you or me believing inalienable rights exist.  I'm saying that, if Justinian affirms the idea that there is an "inalienable right" violated by social conservatives, his political platform would be filled with hypocrisy.  That claim was very specific to Justinian, not inalienable rights in general.

Oh, and I should note: The Nazis weren't banned because they infringed on people's liberties.  That stance completely marginalizes a couple little important details about that portion of history (most notably, the fact that World War 2 and the Holocaust happened).  That's not a threat to liberty.  That's a threat to life on a scale unseen in human history.  Your stance trivalizes both WW2 and the Holocaust.

@Justinian

It's not just a principle issue.  There's absolutely no reason why, in the world where we're deciding that particular political ideologies should be banned because they threaten the liberty of people, that just about any ideology that exists could not fall under the umbrella.  In effect, you just wrote some government organization a blank check to ban whatever the hell they want on the grounds that it infringes upon the liberty of others.

Newsflash: Every aspect of government is an "infringement on the liberty of others."  If a government bans rape, that is inherently an infringement of a person's "right" to choose whether or not to rape someone.  We accept that principle, though, because we believe that rape is a bad "right."  So unless you can have that debate about what is a good "right" or what is a bad "right," you don't have a definition of a "right."  Unless, of course, if you want to go with the "there are inalienable rights" doctrine... in which case you have a whole new category of hypocrisy to deal with. 

Are you seriously saying that the right to debate out and understand the very issues upon which we define our nation is a less important right... than the right to have sex with someone without worrying about their menstrual cycle?

But if they just straight fund stability, how long will it take them to hope to get even one level of stability, with all that minting?  Is it really a successful strat to slowly sit at negative stability and play rebel whack-a-mole while already having enough money trouble?

8.2 moustache with a guy attached

Have they at least grabbed Church Attendance Duty beforehand?

I'm dizzy...

What's with all the pictures of gas stations recently?