There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision?

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?

D61 ,

Yes.

But slavery was also authoritarian.

Any situation where there is a power imbalance that can be enforced through physical or psychological means that somebody doesn’t agree with is authoritarian. Employer/employee? Authoritarian. Parent/infant? Authoritarian. Bank/bank customer? Authoritarian. Doctor/patient? Authoritarian.

Probably the only reasonable definition of authoritarian would be something like, “To be ruled/governed by an authority.” I’ve decided that Bill over there gets to be in charge of things, they’re the authority. I don’t always agree with the decisions they make but they’re in charge. Which seems like it would overlap a bit with the idea of democratic centralism.

intensely_human ,

There’s no such thing as consensual slavery, so I’m gonna go with no. You have to draw the line somewhere, and drawing the line at forcing other people to do things seems like a good place to draw the line.

Crankpork ,

No. A nation that allows slavery doesn’t practice human rights. For human rights to exist they have to apply to everyone, which can’t work if some people are considered property.

No amount of gotchas, or arguing semantics is going to make slavery okay, and the way you’re replying to peoples answers makes me think you fundamentally don’t understand the question.

TheBroodian ,

Yes, and it was good authority to exercise.

livus ,
@livus@kbin.social avatar

Your rights end at the point where they infringe on someone else's rights.

Like, it's my right to walk where I want but it's not my right to walk into your house. Because it's your right to own private property.

Secondly, authoritarianism is not about how many people the law affects. It's about style of governance.

DragonWasabi OP ,

“One’s rights end where another’s begin” - Morally speaking I agree with this, and I’ve heard this phrase used by animal rights activists to argue that humans shouldn’t have the right to violate animals’ (moral) rights to be free, to not be killed, harmed, exploited etc. at least by humans who are moral agents & don’t need to do so.

Again, there is a difference between moral and legal rights. Just like in the case of human slavery where some humans technically had the legal right to enslave other humans - and I would agree that those laws were unethical to begin with since the moral rights of those slave owners to do things (“positive” rights) ended where the moral rights of the victims to be free from oppression/harm/etc (“negative” rights) began - many people argue that the current legal rights of humans to, basically, enslave & kill non-human animals, are similarly built on unethical laws, and don’t translate to moral rights, in the sense that humans’ rights also end where other animals’ rights begin, morally speaking (such a position would of course entail action to liberate non-human animals via boycotting of animal exploitation (veganism) as a moral obligation, similarly to how when the laws that enabled people to own slaves were in place, boycotting the slave trade and being an abolitionist would also be considered a moral obligation by most people today).

Ziggurat ,

As in, is any law that restricts people’s freedom to do something

The problem of this approach is that in that case you refuse any law. Even anarchist would agree that a stateless society need people to agree on common rules.

Speed limit ? restrict your freedom to do something, private property ? Restrict your freedom to go where you want, does restricting your freedom to commit murder feels authoritarian ?

Now what’s more authoritarian ? having the state protecing your right to have slave ? Or having the state protecting people freedom by not letting someone enslave them.

LoveSausage ,

Yes it’s autharitarian to ban slavery. Kind like a revolution is autharitarian. Don’t really get the people who don’t want to impose , what ya gonna do? Ask nicely?

ShimmeringKoi ,
@ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net avatar

Insofar as authoritarian is a useful metric (not very), Yes and it was good

CanadaPlus , (edited )

Natural language is inherently imprecise. You’re going to have to add a contextual definition if you want this to have a single answer.

If making someone do something is always authoritarian, abolition is authoritarian to slavers and anti-authoritarian to slaves. If implementing a law with no checks and balances is authoritarian, it was authoritarian when Louis XIV did it, but maybe not in other cases. If a policy that upholds any kind of hierarchy is authoritarian, it’s always anti-authoritarian.

AndrasKrigare ,

I would go further to say that if “making someone do something” is the definition, literally any action taken by any government is authoritarian. If a government did not make people do things, it would functionally cease to be.

CanadaPlus ,

Yep. That’s the definition Marxists have gravitated to historically, and by that definition everyone is authoritarian and we should stop worrying about it. There’s quotes I’m sure someone here would be happy to supply.

erin ,

Authoritarian doesn’t mean exercising authority. Banning slavery did exercise authority, of the law, over slave owners, but it was anti-authoritarian. It took power, and authority, condensed wrongly in the hands of a few and, in theory, distributed it to the many, however effective it actually was.

theywilleatthestars ,

Significantly less authoritarian than slavery.

CrimeDad ,

Maybe. I guess authoritarianism is good sometimes.

radiofreeval ,
@radiofreeval@hexbear.net avatar

Letting slavers exercise absolute authority over slaves is authoritarian and letting that system remain is authoritarian.

kbal ,
@kbal@fedia.io avatar

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-gillis-your-freedom-is-my-freedom

arthur ,

I think you are lost in the language. There are no absolute rights, in any legal systems. So any “law” necessarily restricts someone’s “rights”.

Therefore, you need to think about what “authoritarian decision” means, because if all law restricts someone’s rights, all laws are authoritarian by your definition.

Also: terrible example to begin with.

prototype_g2 ,

I was about the comment a similar thing.

If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •