This is the moment a quick-thinking female Russian tourist took down a phone-snatcher in Argentina. Video posted by journalist Gonzalo Benitez shows the incident on November 9 when two thieves snuck up on the 33-year-old woman while she was on a bike waiting at a junction in the capital Buenos Aires. As they grab her device, she manages to wrestle one of them off the bike and hold him until Good Samaritans rush to her aid and help restrain him until the police arrive. Officers were also able to trace the offender who fled on the bike and discovered 10 cell phones at the property where he was arrested.
Everyday people coming to the aide of a fellow human who is fighting to stop herself being victimized is anarchy? Yeah, pretty much. Doesn’t seem like a bad thing, though. If we all took that level of responsibility, you wouldn’t need much of a governmental force.
I think everything you just said with many words, is what he said with few words. You’re both in agreement.
Possibly.
not possibly, entirely
Good. I couldn’t be sure. ‘This is actual anarchy’ is just as readable as ‘this is the degeneracy of our modern culture’ as it is as ‘this is people acting responsibly without need of hierarchy.’
i suppose it’s an understandable knee jerk reaction to assume that.
….
i wrote it because when i see riots there’s usually “it was anarchy on the streets!” somewhere….
but in this case there was a large number of people who saw someone needing help and decided to help, which is actually anarchy on the streets…
They’re both technically anarchic, (no hierarchy among rioters either) but things like this demonstrate the lack of hierarchy is clearly not the problem in either situation.
anarchy isn’t just the lack of hierarchy, it’s an organization of society without hierarchical government.
a riot is chaos, not anarchy.
It’s a bit of a semantic grey space, like many words. For common use, anarchy and chaos are synonyms, hence why your initial comment could be read both ways. For a certain class of ‘rebellious’ individual, it’s used more like a naive, ‘lower case l’ libertarianism. For some, it means the absence of any social structure at all, a ‘state of nature.’ For some others it’s the de facto reality of all systems using a definition of ‘who has the most capacity for violence makes the rules.’ For those studying sociology and anthropology, it’s used specifically for a class of societal organizational systems that may be highly organized but share a lack of hierarchy. The shared element between the various uses is the lack of structure so I lean toward keeping it to that basic concept and hesitate to claim any of them are the ‘correct’ definition.
nuf said
I read it as meaning the exact opposite (as in, the crime part is what anarchy looks like) so they might want to reconsider the wording.