the fact that the system is flawed doesn't mean it needs to be totally cast out
You mean like your fantasy objections to libertarianism?
There's a difference between fixable flaws cropping up in implimentation (due to human nature) and inherent, systemic flaws in the idealogy itself.
You mean like concentrating power in the hands of a few people and hoping the bad guys won't make a grab for it and abuse it?
No, I mean like having a system based on a principle that doesn't allow you to impliment your system unless 100% of the population is 100% in agreement (thus an impossibility) otherwise making the system completely contradictory, hypocritical, and arbitrary.
I mean like having a system based on non-aggression and no coercion, even though aggression and coercion are facts of life simply because 100% of the people will not agree on 100% of the issues 100% of the time.
That's an inherently flawed system that CANNOT exist in the real world, not just because I don't want it to, but because it's a physical impossibility.
So we better get to work on improving what we have.
You're only demonstrating that you don't understand libertarianism. You don't need 100% agreement on a single issue much less all of the issues for it to be implemented.