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?

  • @socialpankakemix
    link
    930 days 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
      730 days 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
        530 days 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.