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.

[–] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

It sounds like your definition of authoritarianism is based entirely on whether you personally agree with the laws being enforced by the authorities.

[–] cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

No, it's about the legitimization of law, the legitimization of use of power, checks and balances and unconditional human rights.

[–] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.