Asklemmy

49361 readers

709 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 6 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

-57

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

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

83 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

[–] ArcaneSlime 1 points 1 year ago

Right, there is a difference between moral and legal rights, legal often infringes on what should be our rights (say bodily autonomy, or freedom of speech, freedom to defend your life, etc) depending on your locality, and the government in "X" does not suddenly become the arbiter of right and wrong just because they have the monopoly on force to make you bend to their will. In short, just because China kills or jails political dissidents doesn't mean being a political dissident is "wrong," and they do have a natural right to freely express themselves, but the government infringes upon that right.

Similarly, slavery wherever it exists legal or not is an infringement on the rights of the enslaved, full stop, and nobody has the "right" to own another, "rights" do not come from documents like the Bill of Rights, the Bill of Rights simply enumerates some of the rights we're afforded by virtue of being "our own humans" with our own agency, so to speak.

I'm not here to argue veganism, humans and animals are different creatures, call me speciesist all you want idgaf. When animals all turn vegan of their own accord I'll consider it, until then I'll continue to do as they do.