The debates I've been involved with in the last few weeks have gotten me past my last sticking points. I have to thank my libertarian objectors for demonstrating how truly disempowering their conception of liberty really is. They are in a hopeless conceptual knot. Remember, empowerment is, by definition, added liberty. Philosophical disempowerment is an intellectual wasteland and that is where libertarianism dies a gruesome death. I have a conceptual tool with sharp new teeth and I get to use it in the name of those to whom I dedicated my work many years ago. The child brides of polygamy.

My theory rests on a foundational premise that we can never abandon. To do so is to open the door to tyranny. Before I give that humble little premise that holds up our whole free society, I have to explain how I use the word "justice."

Justice is the principle of balance. Conceptually speaking, it is the ruling principle that provides fairness and equality. It is the one principle that we must never violate because our human rights would then disappear. Justice ensures that nobody can have more human rights than anyone else. It levels the playing field. Since we hold ourselves to be a just society, by definition we can't put ourselves in a position where the power of justice loses ground to any of the principles over which it presides, which are our human rights.

Liberty is a human right. Justice, as the balancing principle, is what guarantees that we all have balanced liberties. Everyone has an equal share. Nobody has the right to have more liberty than anyone else if it comes at the expense of justice- balance. If it comes at the expense of justice, then our human rights are out of balance and justice ends. On that note, if you can agree so far, we can proceed. If not, and you reject the premise that justice is the balancing principle that guarantees fairness and equality in our human rights, that has to be a separate debate. My human rights theory is held together by this principle. If you don't accept it, there's no point in continuing to read.

That other debate is off topic here, and if you want to challenge me in detail on it, let's not make things difficult for Susan. Philosophy is my full-time job and we can always hold the discussion somewhere else any time anyone is ready. From here on, we're committed to the premise that justice is the supreme principle.

The freedom of religion is limited by the balancing principle of justice. At no time can any individual exercise their religious liberties at the expense of anyone else's human rights. This is why underage marriage in the name of religion is unacceptable in a just society. But this extends to adult women also when they are put under duress, as in the case of Mormon fundamentalist society. The duress results from two stressors. The first is the divine commandment to practice polygamy. The second is the effect this moral imperative has on the population in a polygamous society of any size. It is the inevitable shortage of available women. Don't forget that there is no option for women to marry multiple men. That last point illustrates the inherent inequality of the sexes in polygamous society, and conservative partriarchal orders are the only ones allowed. This compounded duress puts even the adult women into a situation that compromises their ability to make proper informed consent. This forces them into polygamous relationships agains their will, if need be. They don't have the option to refuse to marry. Their society has severe written and unwritten sanctions against that. To them, the commandment to practice polygamy is more powerful than the force of criminal law. They must submit. This violates their human rights and we cannot allow that in a just society. Polygamy therefore comes at the expense of human rights in almost every way it has been practiced in this country. It must remain illegal and we need to enforce all of the laws. Otherwise the balance of justice is skewed again. We cannot call ourselves a just society and allow polygamy to be legal. And justice does not allow us to let it pass without prosecuting it.