Obviously it was a good thing that it was banned, but I’m just wondering if it would technically be considered authoritarian.

As in, is any law that restricts people’s freedom to do something (yes, even if it’s done to also free other people from oppression as in that case, since it technically restricts the slave owner’s freedom to own slaves), considered authoritarian, even if at the time that the law is passed, it’s only a small section of people that are still wanting to do those things and forcibly having their legal ability to do them revoked?

Or would it only be considered authoritarian if a large part of society had their ability to do a particular thing taken away from them forcibly?

    • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      That’s a weird assumption when I said it was good that it was abolished. Humans shouldn’t have the right to own slaves is my belief. (But they did have that right at the time legally speaking). Or another way to put it, is that I don’t think humans have the moral right to own slaves, even if they did have the legal right. This was a response to someone else telling me that banning slavery was an authoritarian decision. I just wanted to get clarification and try to understand it better.

      • socialpankakemix
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        5 months ago

        when you say banning slavery took away people’s rights, that means you Believe owning humans is a right.

        • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          They legally had that right at the time. I don’t think they should have had that right, or that they morally have that right. I think we’re talking about 2 different meanings of the term “right”. In one sense (legally), they had the right, as in it was codified into law. That’s not a belief as much as a fact. The part which concerns my belief is whether I think they should have had the right or if they have the moral right, which I don’t. I hope that makes sense.

          • socialpankakemix
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            5 months ago

            if you don’t believe they had the right to own slaves, then they had no rights taken away, if your saying they did have rights taken away then you are saying they had a right to own slaves.

            • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              5 months ago

              Do you agree that someone can theoretically have a legal right to do something bad (as in, be legally allowed to do it) without that being a good or moral right for them to have?

              I think you’re only believing “right” to mean one thing and one thing only, when I’m using it in a sense where legality and morality don’t necessarily coincide (even if they do in other contexts, conditionally).

              So when I say they had the legal right to own slaves, and that right was taken away from them, that isn’t a matter of opinion/belief because that’s factually what happened, but that doesn’t mean that I think they had the right morally speaking, which is a different concept.

              I hope this makes sense.

              • socialpankakemix
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                5 months ago

                any authority has no incentive to make laws that are moral, only to make laws that maintain the system. rights are not given to you by an authority they are something you have as a person and cannot be taken away only violated.

      • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        So you heard someone use a white supremacist talking point, and now you’re ignorantly repeating it under the banner of asking if it has merit?

        It does not. Repeating this line as you’ve done here is what the white supremacist who fed it to you wants you to do, as it appears to give legitimacy white supremacy. It does not. It is a false claim.

        • DragonWasabi@monyet.ccOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          They weren’t a white supremacist and they were in favor of banning slavery while simultaneously believing it to be an authoritarian decision. They were using this to argue that authoritarianism can be justified sometimes. Your comment assumes that saying something is authoritarian means that you’re against it.

          • Lavitz@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Look buddy, I’m from the south and this is a talking point for Confederate sympathizers. This train of thought has no substance to it. The civil war didn’t just happen to people, slavery did. People did what they had to do to get out and there’s nothing authoritarian about that. You’re not being more intelligent than everyone else and you’re not the smartest person in the room like this gentleman would like you to believe, you’re being gullible.

          • ℕ𝕖𝕞𝕠@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            Same shit, different spread. So they’re twisting the facts to support a different kind of authoritarianism, instead of white supremacy. That’s not much better.