"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.