In three words, Issodhos: that's your opinion.

There is nothing in libertarian philosophy that would prevent a voluntary association of individuals engaging collectively in an activity. If you wish to have a gardening collective made up of individuals who freely chose to participate in it, your and their right to freedom of association would be recognized.
Yours,
Issodhos

Because everyone is not indentical, I think libertarianism's opposition to initiating aggression, its recognition of unalienable natural rights, and its natural social tolerance for others makes it more workable.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

In four words, NW Ponderer: That's my informed opinion.;-)
Yours,
Issodhos

The difference may seem obvious to you, but less so to others. Perhaps you could review the salient points of distinction that you see .

Thx
Ardy

in theory, communism is quite workable

i have read the histories of alternative communities, the true anarchists, and it seems that with each attempt, the groups involved in these experiments are undone by their desire to each have it his or her own way. in the end, they have all gone their own way. conversely, the community or collectivist experiments that seem to work more effectively are those in which common agreements are struck, a core principle is put in place that allows the communities to work in concert. within each system you work with a series of individuals, and personalities, and desires. but with a shared agreement - shall we call them laws? - a social contract, if you will, these groups coexist more effectively, imo.

all of that said, as schlack points out, communism, is also workable. the problem with any system, outside of disagreements over principles, is the human element. i, for example, do not have enough faith in humanity to see a true anarchist, cooperative society, work. neither do i see a the extreme on the other end of the spectrum work. it seems that in the middle, with a set of agreements, complicated as they become, society functions together, in a more pointed direction, with a greater purpose, the perpetuation of said society. of course there will always be those who put themselves outside the system in play, complaining that they have better answer. perhaps these individuals can never be satisfied.

outside of that, selfish individuals in any system are the downfall. an individualist society would work fine, i would concede, if you were working with a group of selfless minded folks. but that is a rare beast.

Again, I find no flaws with the theory and was writing a bit tongue in cheek. After all, this isn't my ball game or my thread.
My point was that if everyone shared your views then your theory of government and economics(the two are really one) would work admirably. That can't be said of all political/economic theories since most others are more top or bottom heavy and require an occasional "flip" to keep them rolling.
Over the years and through many thousands of posts, you have attempted to share your views with us, to show us on occasion that there is a different viewpoint from merely right or left. You seem a kind and gentle man, intelligent and educated, articulate and well read and yet you fail almost every time to make lightbulbs come on over our heads.
From the treatise presented at the beginning of this thread I gather that other Libertarians are having exactly the same problem. We, here, are generally an open minded group, many are very well educated in a variety of fields. I have no education whatsoever and can barely link words together to form a sentence, still I manage to absorb some of the simpler concepts presented here. I think most of us are opposed to initiating aggression, agree with you that we have inalienable natural rights, and are reasonably socially tolerant. How is it that Libertarianism can work if the concept cannot even be explained without invoking anger and misunderstanding? We seem to agree with all the basic tenets of libertarianism while at the same time we disagree with all the basic tenets of libertarianism. I call it Shrodingers Square peg.

The other possibility is that you invoke the anger and misunderstanding intentionally, I'd rather not even consider the possibility but the thought has arisen elsewhere. If such is the case and libertarians everywhere are doing the same then, my friend, Libertarianism can never be more than a crackpot scheme, with lots of fancy words and theories that only you can understand.

iss,

how about you give us a straight forward argument as to why we would be better off existing under the principles of libertarianism. in your own words. what say you?

2wins, I already understand how if everyone agreed to be a libertarian that the system should work. The Constitution of the United States would remain firmly in place, thus anrchy would not prevail. What I fail to understand is how it could ever possibly come about. In another thread I offered up a small nation as a sort of thought experiment where Issodhos could explain from the beginning how a libertarian government could be achieved, he hasn't had time to reply to that but I do look forward to discussing it with him.. I also look forward to his reply to your query. Perhaps we make too many demands on his limited online time though....