this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2023
196 points (84.0% liked)
World News
32351 readers
322 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well, every state enforces its laws and its territorial claims through the use of unilateral violence; if a person doesn't agree with a state's law, the state isn't going to exempt them from it, it will make them follow it by force. More importantly, the state maintains that this is a moral and legitimate use of force: that it has the authority to do this.
And yes most states (all states really) have procedures by which their citizens can have a say in what the laws should be, but what they never do is cede any authority. Everybody has to follow the law, and will be forced to if needed.
I don't necessarily agree with "moral". In western democracies laws and use of force doesn't legitimize itself by a call to morality usually. Just using some kind of authority, doesn't make a government authoritarian by any common definition of the word.
It absolutely does imo, it legitimises itself through an appeal to an underlying moral framework.
Actually it pretty much does, atleast if you actually stick to definition. In practice, of course, the word is mostly just used as a snarl word to attack enemy countries, but at that point definitions have gone out the windows.
Yes, but very indirectly. We don't have a "moral police", but one that enforces laws which are, as you say, legitimized by the people as a sovereign.
So you don't see police stopping people on "moral grounds" in some vague interpretation.
You misunderstand me fairly severely. I did not say that the state enforces "moral law", or anything even close to that.
I said that the state maintains that it is moral for it to enforce law at all. Because generally speaking, it is not considered moral to unilaterally compel people, with violence if necessary, to behave in ways they do not agree to, and to not believe they should have to.
What about abortion? Tracking if women are pregnant and hunting them down if then stop being pregnant.
Usually codified by lawy not prosecuted as "immoral behaviour" as such. Although if you look at recent anti-abortion legislation in the US it is intentionally vague. That shifts some burden of interpretation to the executive branch and is a sign of authoritarianism I'd say.
It sounds like your definition of authoritarianism is based entirely on whether you personally agree with the laws being enforced by the authorities.
No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights.
All of those are just different ways of saying that it's what you agree with. The law is legitimate based on what? Whether you agree with it. Which set of human rights are unconditional? The one's you personally like. I don't see any countries that respect the unconditional right of all humans to the earth's commons - the collective inheritance of all mankind - but because you don't care about that right, it doesn't factor in.