-57

Was banning human slavery an authoritarian decision? (self.asklemmy)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by DragonWasabi to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

82 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?

(page 2) 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 years ago

No, one's rights end where another's begin. One does not have "rights" over another, I.e you have the right to a gun, but not to murder willy nilly, only to ensure your right to life from someone trying to take yours.

To liberate a person who's right to be free is infringed upon is therefore libertarian in nature rather than authoritarian, because the transgression to one's freedom is the "owner" "owning" a person, making the liberation a form of defense akin to shooting your attacker.

[-] DragonWasabi 1 points 2 years ago

"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).

[-] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 years 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.

[-] verdare@beehaw.org 1 points 2 years ago

I think you should pause to interrogate the statement “freedom to own slaves.” What do you think ownership is? Who enforces it?

If passing a law that takes away ownership is “authoritarian” in your eyes, what about the enforcement of ownership? Doesn’t the state enforcing property rights also take away certain freedoms? Not just with the obvious example of slavery, but in general.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 1 points 2 years ago

Maybe. I guess authoritarianism is good sometimes.

load more comments

this post was submitted on 18 May 2024

-57 points (26.1% liked)

Asklemmy

54058 readers

478 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
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS