Asklemmy

43907 readers

1312 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-57

Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision? (monyet.cc)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

81 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (4 children)

No.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (3 children)

If it was legal for certain people to slap certain other people, then the people doing the slapping would have the authority over the people being slapped to slap them. But then if the law was changed and took away their authority to slap them, that would be using authority over those slappers to stop them. Does this make sense? Both can be true at the same time

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

You've now described a second scenario in which authority is being removed and not added.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

But authority can be used/imposed to take away some else's authority, can't it? Or can authority only be used to do something to someone, not to prevent someone from doing something?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago

What these questions are missing is that the government didn't start from a place of neutrality, they started by enforcing the institution of slavery. They didn't go from having no authority over slavery to having all of it, rather the authority they had remained static. The only variable for the amount of authority then is that the classes of "slave" and "slave owner" stopped being a thing, so there were no longer slave owners that had absolute authority over slaves.