Well you can't deny that anarchism has made a pretty bad name for itself with the Dogma of Violence from the past century. Of course, the movement is evolving but the past has a powerful presence.
Also, the fact that anarchists generally would like to reserve the power to hurt other people to themselves and would not give it up to some controlling structure sounds quite dangerous ("I don't care about the laws of the land, the decision what is good or bad lies entirely with me and I reserve the right to use violence to defend my values")
Not that I completely denounce the ideas, but I'm generally careful in declaring support for them.
That said, I think in the next say 10 years, terrorists would still remain mostly Muslim in the eye of the mainstream media. With the small addition of far-right crackpots like Breivik.
No, not quite. The main reason that violence is associated with anarchism (particularly in Europe) is because Karl Marx theorized that a true communist society was impossible so long as the capitalist society remained stable, thus a stage requiring the violent destruction of the capitalist system is required. From this perspective, anarchists are not seeking a stable society sans-government (or even sans-capitalism per se) they are actively seeking an
unstable society in the hopes that insability and unrest will provoke the masses to react by seeking out an alternative social structure since "capitalism has failed". Of course, they expect that capitalism will fail with a little push, but it never has before.
In the long run, most European anarchists (and many American anarchists of similar stripe) are actually marxists, whether they realize it or not. Many don't, since many are just young punks looking for a reason to break stuff and set building ablaze.
Conflict is the natural state of mankind; peace requires effort, and therefore is not the natural state of mankind. A true free market encourages peaceful trade, both at the individual level and the international level; and therefore
discourages warfare. It's a pity that we haven't had anything close to a true free market in this country since at least 1913. Bitcoin's greatest promise (IMHO) is to bring back such free markets, first in an online setting then everywhere, in everything that we do simply by permitting us to
ignore the state if we wish. An entire world interacting in tiny, niche markets that extend the world over, in a System D fashion, cannot be regulated any more effectively today than a tax on tea in 1776 or a tax on whiskey in 1791.
