Anarchy is by definition a social construct; nothing restricted to a single individual can BE "anarchy". Hence I dispute saying that, because I don't think it can be said; it makes no more sense than a phrase like "democratic person" or "group individual". I'm not advocating anarchy of any sort here, but resisting mob rule, and I have to say I find it odd that you don't see that.

It's a distinction I often make, because it's important and often neglected, making frequent reminders all the more important.

Murder infringes on other peoples right to live as they please (to live at all, in fact). Again, your rights aren't absolue; they end where they infringe on my equally inalienable rights. Bestiality abuses animals who can't give or deny consent, though animals aren't entitled to the rights of people (we do eat them, after all). Of course, in many parts of America it's only been illegal a few years, when people learned it was hard to prosecute even as animal cruelty. For that matter, even animal cruelty laws seem more about preventing sociopathic behavior that would find its way to human targets, and of course protecting the property rights of people with pets and/or livestock. It's not like we have tons of ancient laws against bestiality on the basis of morality though; we have a number of very recent laws against it because a disgusted modern society discovered previous ones declined to legislate on the basis of morality alone.

Yes, I see exactly where you're going: Immoral acts SHOULD be illegal. The problem with that logic is that right after that you say,

You're arguing we should legislate morality then reminding me society is rife with sin; see any conflicts there...?

The real problem is that I don't believe in moral relativism AND know society generally does. That means that if we start letting majorities dictate law on the basis of what they declare unassailable morality we'll not only end up with very immoral laws (which makes the quest for moral law largely pointless anyway), but extremely inconsistent and temporary laws, because as societys laws will shift with its social mores. That already happens to a great extent, as I believe you're aware, but unless we restrict our restrictions to actions that affect those unwilling or unable to consent it will become epidemic. That's a lot closer to anarchy than anything I'm suggesting; it's no more than "if 51% of voters say it feels good, do it--whether you want to or not". Murder, bestiality, you name it. Wanna hook your daughters on crack and rape them so they'll bear you more crack whores to pimp? It's never more than a ballot initiative from legality, but be careful; if you don't word it right it might be COMPULSORY and then you'll have too much competition. It used to be a federal crime to free slaves or prevent their owners from recapturing them; did having a rule against those things make them immoral, or just unpopular? If you really think society functions on the basis of "I can do whatever I want...unless there's a rule against it" I recommend never leaving America, especially not for any place in the Mid-East. Most countries there have lots of strictly enforced rules against lots of things, but how well their societies "function" is open to debate (we've been debating it with the Taliban for nearly a decade).

Yes, society is rife with sin, but the principle form of sin is imposing ones will on others. Ultimately, even when when we do immoral things that involve no one but ourselves it's just an attempt to impose our supremacy on God, but since we aren't God it's not our place to deny others that freedom, however we abuse it, or we're just as guilty as they. Society is rife with sin, but Christians are supposed to try, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to be Christ-like. Going around imposing our will on others because we're fortunate enough to outnumber them doesn't accomplish that, it prevents it. We can argue, we can persuade, we can convince but we can NEVER coerce without committing sin.