*nods* It reminds me of the notion that atheists are immoral and unethical because they don't follow a codified morality or body of ethics. Or of the notion that religions, or lack of religion, and the people that adhere to either, condone the violent upheavals of their most extremist members, when there is nothing reasonable to support such arguments. They are based on, either, a solipsistic worldview, or upon parroting dubious external authorities like the ones you cited, commentators who practice journalism sloppily and without regard for proofs: "A few terrorists happen to be Muslim, ergo all Muslims have the potential for radical terrorism." And thus, an entire 'Group' is criminalized.

I had understood anarchy to be chaotic as well, since that was what I was taught in school, and at the undergraduate level of university. Once I was out in the field, reporting on and interacting with different people who were vilified as anarchists, I learned and saw that this couldn't be further from the truth. The people I interviewed and watched and described were deeply lawful, and wanted a return to law — if the law was defined as collective agreements that allowed for the greatest amount of individual liberty within the most encompassing and inclusive social supportive structures (infrastructure being one example.) Not one of these 'anarchists' wanted a wild frontier without transportation, power, clean water, etc.. So, there is a huge disconnect between what actually 'is' and what is being called 'what is'. Unfortunately, it is being used to abnegate democratic responsibilities.