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?

  • Kuori [she/her]
    ·
    6 months ago

    questions like this nicely demonstrate how worthless a concept "authoritarianism" really is

    • Tartas1995@discuss.tchncs.de
      ·
      6 months ago

      Not really. It is the tolerance paradox.

      Banning slavery might be authoritarian but it is less authoritarian than allowing it. So on the political scale, banning slavery is anti-authoritarian and allowing it is authoritarian.