You demonstrate that you don't understand the philosophy, then say it is unworkable. It is actually completely compatible with the US constitution but the redistribution that is occuring would be reversed with surprisingly subtle measures. Unions play a big part, but I think the problem you're having understanding the philosophy is the persistent view that the state is required to control resources and for the 90 thousandth time, that is not what I or any other libertarian socialist suggests.
If the state doesn't control the resources, then the people who have them currently control them. In order for you to get control of resources to society in order to make Libertarian Socialism a fact you would require everyone to WANT to give up their property(businesses, ect.) to the collective. Then the collective runs the business. What is the difference between the collective and government? Somebody would still be the manager of the plant and make decisions. Even if everyone voted who worked there someone would still be in charge in the end. How do you transition between what we have now and Libertarian Socialism. Walk me down the path.
It is hard for anyone to understand a philosophy that cannot be pinned down. I understand the philosophy perfectly, it is how the philosophy can come to exist that we are discussing. I can understand the difference between Libertarian Socialism and regular Socialism. The sticking point is how do you get Libertarian Socialism without force. If Libertarian Socialism turns into regular Socialism every time because it requires force to implement then you end up with a philosophy that might as well be "can't we all just get along." I am asking you the path to get to where everyone involved can and does make the uncoerced choice to become socialists.
By the way: A vote for Obama was a vote for statist socialism and a vote for Romney was a vote for statist fascism. You picked voting for something you don't believe in vs throwing it away by voting for someone you could actually believe in.
