3 ms·

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. [...] But it’s one that

> Anarchists are simply people who believe human beings are capable of behaving in a reasonable fashion without having to be forced to. [...] But it’s one that the rich and powerful have always found extremely dangerous. So you're telling me they don't behave well on their own? Also: > Do you believe [...] that certain sorts of people (women, people of color, ordinary folk who are not rich or highly educated) are inferior specimens, destined to be ruled by their betters? Doesn't really go well with: > Do you believe that most politicians are selfish, egotistical swine who don’t really care about the public interest? So, all are equally good, unless you're rich or a politician, in which case you're a pig. What could possibly go wrong?

learnstats2 6y ago
"Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect any who seek it" (and similar) is a very common aphorism. It's not an unreasonable position to take that we should dismantle these power structures (having extreme wealth or extreme political power), and it's not unreasonable to be cautious of those who seek to maintain those.
sudosysgen 6y ago
Do you not see the fundamental difference between disliking people for what they are and disliking people for what they chose to do and become?
- Sebb767 6y ago
  No. This is not black and white. Case in point: Religion. Is it okay to prosecute someone for that? They choose it after all. You might say he was born into that, but same goes for rich children. I hope I don't need to argue on why prosecuting for a religion is a bad thing. To be fair here, I don't think it's wrong in all cases to judge someone for his groups. If you say everyone in the KKK is bad, that's fine by me (and, FTR: I agree). But the hypocrisy irks me alot.