• cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        the state maintains that this is a moral and legitimate use of force: that it has the authority to do this.

        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.

          • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            It absolutely does imo, it legitimises itself through an appeal to an underlying moral framework.

            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.

              • cucumber_sandwich@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                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.