Ask Lemmy

I think there's a line where mandates are authoritarian and where they aren't, and it comes down the house beneficial for society or a group it is, but in particular also how exclusionary it is. Your view on determining it by face value is too simple for this.

For example, if you mandate only Hispanic kids to wear uniforms, by your logic, that is more moral and less authoritarian because less students are being made to wear a uniform as opposed to all of them.

Yet, it's obvious that is not the case, despite fitting into your statement.

Likewise, individualism has limits before it's simply chaos too, and therefore should also be looked as to what point it instead brings harm. People here have, for example, listed many reasons not having a uniform code can be detrimental as well (wealth class divisions, strengthening of cliques, weakening of the student body's efforts against things an administration will do).

Not to mention, even in your call for a lack of uniforms, you are still technically imposing mandates: not only against those who do wish to have them, but likely against what people want to actually wear. I doubt you want students going in boxers or bikinis for example.

And lastly, I'd like to mention that socialism is counter to authoritarianism. Authoritarianism might use some socialist aspects sometimes, but socialism itself isn't in the same spectrum as authoritarianism.