Braze,
I took your comments as a compliment and thank you so much for those kind words!
Braze and Char,
Nice discussion between you two! Excellent thoughts, good points. This is great to see IMO.
On anarchy, the link to the definition was a good one meaning the absense of law or some form of goverance. I would agree the vast majority of people would hold that anarchy isn't a viable form of society in which to live and they do have a good point. However, does the presense of law or a governing presense in society guarantee the society and it's people will be a lawful one and no crimes will be committed? Obviously the answer to that is no as well so let's agree no matter what there's no perfect world and I'd venture to say we all here agree with that as well.
Char said it best when he/she (sorry Char and Braze as I don't know your genders) stated that the problem with gov't is the people itself. I'll go a little more specific, it's the heart or nature of man that is the problem so this really comes down IMO to a more philosophical (religious if you will) issue. This becomes complicated as well come from various POV and religious dogmas but overall I'd think it's safe to say we all agree that murder, theft, rape and other similar crimes are wrong and therefore forbidden. With all the variety of folks here I'd like to discuss this sometime but this is for another time and day. The point was that we do have areas we all agree.
Now taking the absence of gov't or law, I'd like to use the traffic intersection to prove what IMO is a fact about human nature and people. Ever been at a traffic light and watch some moran flat run the light? Yeah me too. Ever also wish a traffic cop was sitting there at the time? Count me in as well. Ever see the cop there and get the offender and you cheer? Add me in again. Did the presence of the light and traffic laws prevent any violation? No, it does reduce the chance granted but it doesn't totally eliminate all violations. Generally what happens more than anything else is someone pushes the envelop and runs it as the light goes red and the other turns green. Now most lights too have a built in delay to where when one light turns red the other delays for a second or 2 and then turns green to compensate for those envelop pushers out there. So you see even the police powers know there are law breakers even when law is present but we still will push the bounderies as we assume the other guy will obey granting us a clear path to safety.
When the chaos ensues is when we have 2 drivers coming from different directions with one assuming the other guy will pause for him and the other guy waiting on the green as if he's in the final round of an NHRA drag race and wants to cut a great light! The result? Crash!!!!! Did the law work? Obviously not and in one sense you might even suggest it caused the crash because it put these 2 into an assuming mindset. Where else might law also place us into an assuming mindset? Give it some thought.
Now let's go to the anarchy traffic intersection and we can in some respect by thinking back to that intersection where the traffic light is not functioning at all. What do most people do in that situation? Most assume nothing at all and act accordingly in order to avoid an accident. Sure you still have the occassional idiot but everyone is so on their P's and Q's that when the idiot appears, everyone is ready to respond and accidents are avoided. About the only after effects are people who swear up and down they don't curse uttered a few choice words!
My point is, there never is a total absense of law or governace as even when it appears to be absent, people themselves will establish their own proper behavior amongst themselves and traditionally if falls very close to the basic morals we hold dear in society at large. For the lone libertine (not a libertarian and I think some of you don't know the difference) at some point the rest of society will corner his arse and read him the riot act and depending upon his responce dispatch him from the presence of their community or if need be and is warranted dispatch his arse from the presence of the face of the earth!
For the sake of discussion
As to a libertine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertine
As to a libertarian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian
Char, as to article 1 section 8 of the Constitution, you are dead on the money. We are so far from an art. 1 sec. 8 gov't that it ain't even funny.
Braze,
Amend and update the Constitution! Interesting idea and I've heard that expressed more than once on the premise that we are more advanced today and more complicated than we were then but is that true? What guided the founding fathers more than anything else is drafting the documents that in time made the country we now call home?
In a nutshell it was history and even moreso an understanding of the nature of man based on the knowledge of that history. Sure, they didn't understand the vastness of the universe as we do, the computer, quantum physics, quantum mechaincs or even quantum theory but they weren't drafting a gov't to govern those areas.
Their idea of gov't was one that was limited in nature and scope with well definded areas of governance. They knew there would be unforeseens and allowed for such and the amendment process is one way. They also included a 9th and 10th amendment that pretty must said, "what we don't specify to the federal gov't level we leave that in the hands of the States and the people."
This was done because they knew by the nature of man that when you started a centralizing of power into the hands of an ever decreasing few that the heart of man would come into play and greedy men with a skillful minds of deception would in the end rule the day. The idea was that the basic rules of moral principles that govern us on the day to day essence that is life is best left to the people and how they choose to govern themselves on a local basis where they live.
The idea being that having 13 as in States and then of those 1000's of local communities that some would get it right and doubtedly some were gonna get it wrong. People if left free and given the facts and knowledge will generally tend to gravitate towards the better deal and thus the pressure is on the bad communities to step up or people will either flee to a better place or step up and change what they have before them.
I think what we need more than anything else is to read that constitution and then read the men that wrote it to see what they meant and intended. If then we choose to disagree, then maybe you have a valid point on the path we should travel. I contend for now that we are ignorant of the Constitution and the underlying premise of history and philosophy that inspired it's creation in the first place.
And all this coming from an Anti-Federalist who opposes the Constitution to begin with!
Here's a little something for starters if you want to know what that is about!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-federalist
to you and Braze as your response seems to have opened up the discussion abit to where people are listing and talking specifics issues instead of just general characterizations based on stereotypes of party affiliations. I normally don't rate posts or posters but in your case and Brazen's I'm giving you the top rating. It's not that I agree or disagree with you on every point but I just greatly appreciate the openness and the upfrontness both of you showed in expressing your thoughts. We need people to be specific on the issues and IMO this leeds to ideas being thrown around that in time solutions could begin to emerge. 
or get off the pot or even better yet relocate to Chavez country...
