Since in recent events, newspapers and a CBF thread the term "anarchy" has been waved about I thought I would input some thoughts on it. The term itself, of course, means without rule. But this is interpreted in different ways. I'll mention three.
There is a considered philosophical position that rejects rule by kings, religion or the state and insists that the individual (perhaps only the perticular individual anarchist) can live their life without these exterior forces either prescibing (and enforcing) thoughts and actions or sustaining them - and hence this form of anarchism would strongly reject taking state benefits, for example.
There is another, we might say vulgar, form of anarchism that is a rejection of rules rather than rule. Whereas followers of the first version think society can be sustained by the freely given consent of indivuals, this second group seem to propose that the individual can do what they bloody well please and to hell with everyone else. This is a view of the world that has appealed to fit, strong, irresponsible young men over a few thousand years.
A third meaning is that wisely observed by Karl Marx - the anarchy of the capitalist "free market", or what Adan Smith wrongly celebrated as the hidden hand of the market; the notion that capitalism can be left to run itself without anyone imposing rules upon it. It was this belief - plus a few backhanders no doubt - that led to finance markets being increasingly unregulated during the final decade of the last century and the opening one of this. It is this that led to the ludicrous excesses of individual greed amongst bankers and other financiers that led to the global financial crisis.
It is the third form of anarchy that has caused vastly more havoc tp people around the world than those violent young men in London yesterday.
