Obviously it was a good thing that it was banned, but Iβm just wondering if it would technically be considered authoritarian.
As in, is any law that restricts peopleβs freedom to do something (yes, even if itβs done to also free other people from oppression as in that case, since it technically restricts the slave ownerβs freedom to own slaves), considered authoritarian, even if at the time that the law is passed, itβs 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?
