Not trying to argue, just giving my opionion on what pawnsolo wrote above in his statement.  I havent looked at your statement yet at all...

I agree Conquistador: there are no absolutes. But I am an anarchist as much as one can be one and not be an idealist. Idealism is corruptible.

An example of a functioning anarchistic system would be Alcoholics Anonymous.

Realistically, there are far too many people living in America today for a pure anarchy to function; with a smaller population the means could justify the ends, but with so many vested interests involved, there has to be a structure in place to ensure stability and civility.

Good governance is achieved is through compromise and dialogue, where humanity can best serve humanity's common interests. More often than not, the State does not operate thus. For example, look at the gridlock found on the Federal, State, and local level bodies of government.

The question is, is the behemoth that is in place opperating for its own bennefit or for the bennefit of the people? Only you can answer that for yourself. I know my answer. It (the public sector) is not for the bennefit of the people (the private).  The portion of the system that is opperating thus, is doing so for  a very very small percent, and they have sole influence on the machine. The government has become a souless leviathan, such is its nature.

Knightspawn: the difference is that tearing down is a top down action where as uprooting is a bottom up one. You can tear down and the base still exists. When you uproot, the base as well as the structure is altered.  I would love to uproot the IRS, not tear it down. But tearing down the military industrial complex is far less reckless than uprooting it. 

As someone who sees a very limited legitimate role for the state (the acceptence of that role making me not an anarchist), I would be interested in joining a libertarian group, and suspect (via the explosion in popularity of Ron Paul and Austrian economics on the internet) that a number of others here would as well.

I note that there is already a group associated with the (US) Libertarian party, though I suspect that its association with said party has limited it's scope and outreach, indeed it has only 11 members and only one thread not created by myself, with none of the other members currently active within the group.

I cannot make a group of my own at this point (I am presently in debt and don't use electronic currencies or credit cards), but would be happy to join and contribute to a broad based libertarian-minded group should one be created, assuming that a decent level of intelligence, civility and respectfulness was upheld within said group.

Should anyone reading this post be interested in forming such a group, please send me an invite.

What's the name of it. Maybe we can resurrect it.

Worth a shot perhaps...

It's name is "Libertarian Chess", found @ http://www.chess.com/groups/home/libertarian-chess

As per the OP, I would suggest the work of Stefan Molyneux for a lot of good books and videos on the political philosophy of anarchism. Check him out on youtube (user name Stefbot), or via www.freedomainradio.com where he has many of his books free for text and/or audio download.

There are also plenty of other intelligent authors and commentators as well on libertarianism and anarchism on youtube as well for those interested in looking into it more.

Anarchy is one of those words like bee's; whenever people hear it they mindlessly swat at the air and run away shrieking. Chances are, if you leave it alone it won't hurt you, unless of coarse it has become africanized. 

Jesus christ. If anyone is actually interested in anarchism: Lao Tzu, Godwin, Proudhon, Stirner, Bakhunin, Kropotkin, De Cleyre, Malatesta, Berkman, Goldman, Bookchin, the Diggers and Ranters, the Spanish Civil War, Makhnovist Ukraine, Krondstadt, The SI, May 1968...and on, and on. Here I was, hoping for a fun little chess variant in which mate did not rest upon the king. Sweet fuck.