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?

  • Tartas1995
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    I think it is a bit unfair to give you shit for your question.

    it is normal to confuse authoritarian system with restrictions of freedom. Because generally that is how it works. But not in this case…

    Because it is the paradox of tolerance all over again. Technically it is authoritarian to ban slavery but it would be more authoritarian to allow it as people would own people… So on the scale of how authoritarian an action is, banning slavery is as anti-authoritarian as it gets and allowing slavery is as authoritarian as it gets. (Of course, a world without slavery and without any rules would be less authoritarian but… I think we know better than trying that with slavery)

    I hope this helps in actually understanding the reason instead of being told what it is.

    • ulkesh@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s not at all unfair when instead of thanking people for their answers, they’re rewording what they have said to ask in a different way just to try to act like their hypothesis is right.

      Playing Devil’s Advocate is one thing, taking the time to try to effectively say that people should think Lincoln was authoritarian because he removed a legal “right” is another.

      The STAMP act was legal, and our ancestors rebellled and got a country out of it (among other things). Law does not make right. And that’s what the OP doesn’t understand. He’s using semantics to try to make up something that simply isn’t true.

      Edit: And technically Lincoln didn’t change the law, the 13th Amendment did. Lincoln simply created a proclamation that slaves in most areas (note that it wasn’t all slaves everywhere in the states, deals were struck to omit some areas from the proclamation) are to be considered free because it was a way to help win the Civil War. It was both morally right, and a strategic move. If that is to be considered authoritarian, then every single executive order that presidents make should also be considered authoritarian. But again, it’s simply not true in our system of government (however plagued by dysfunction it is these days).