Does democracy work?

Yes, it has.
Read history of the Greeks.
If only life were so simple, and the majority was ALWAYS right and the minority ALWAYS wrong.
We'd still be living on a flat Earth, if that were true.

 

Like communism (real communism, not China or Russia), it only really works as a theory. There is no government that will realistically do what everyone wants. If everyone was equal, there would be people saying they deserve more because they work harder. But in the US everyone complains because the rich people have everything and (most) don't have to work as hard as the poorer people who can barely afford to keep their house.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will know peace" It's been said a million times, but it's the truth.

 

I really have no way of knowing we exported it all and we're left with this representative republic.

 

Perhaps it would be easier if someone would define how they think democracy 'should' work, and how that would be an improvement over what began as a Constitution based Republic form of government(s).

 

I think that a big problem we have is the polarization that is in America. Most people believe there is one side or another, ideas are locked onto a certain side democrat or republican.. maybe the two party system should double checked

 

Is there any form of government that 100% of the governed would find 100% acceptable?

 

damnnnnn government is just too big to overcome

 

nevermind we just have to try!

 

I vote no. A system where property can be taken from one and given to another against that persons wishes is not a good system, especially when you are forced under threat of imprisonment to support it monetarily.

 

Yes, anarchy, if people understood it better.

 

The Italians seem to have perfecter it...

 

I kind of doubt you would find a large portion of any society that would prefer anarchy to some other form of government. I guess the population would be reduced rapidly by the elimination of those who did not accept anarchy, allowing it to become more acceptable to those who remained, if that is what you're promoting.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "the elimination of those who do not accept anarchy".
What I am saying is that it would be more acceptable that any other form of government. Unfortunately, most people seem to think that anarchy is about violence, which is simply not true. It is about individual rights and responsibilities, instead of created entities that take them away.

 

Maybe you need to provide an explanation of how you are defining anarchy. Usually, it is defined as lacking any source of authority, allowing the exercise of what could be described only as allowing the nearest thing to absolute freedom, which would result in no punishment or laws to prevent anyone from doing anything to another.

 

If you don't mind, take a little time to read this:
http://anarchism.net/steppes.htm

It is a piece of fiction, but expresses what I mean better than how I would be able to word it. It can be read online without having to download anything, and is not too long.

 

55 Chapters, but perhaps you could briefly sum up what you mean, as I don't really see how you relate this fictional story with anarchism, other than the site source having anarchism in its name.

 

It is a fictional story, but it revolves around an anarchist society that could work. It would take me almost as long to attempt to explain the same thing, and a brief summary could not accurately describe it.

You asked for a description of how I define anarchy, this story most accurately fits how I would do that. Not verbatim, but better than any other.

I refer to this story instead of some political type statement as it gives interactions between characters and better explains the whys and hows of the system, something you cannot get from a textbook example. Sort of like the old parable way of explaining something, that book explains it in a manner people could relate to.

 

While I admit I did not read the entire 55 chapters, I skimmed over it and found nothing that would define it as an anarchy as it looks like there were people who were given the power to govern, and only in a fictional story is it likely that you could ever get an entire population, especially one with more than 300 million individuals, to accept any one individual acceptable to arbitrate differences fairly and without bias in every instance.

 

No problem, just trying to answer your questions, I think it shows a very well thought out example of how an anarchist society would work.
Perhaps someone else here could give you a good short example of their view of anarchy, I prefer to use this as an example as I think it goes to pretty good lengths to explain what anarchy is.

 

I still fail to see how it fits the definition of anarchy, when at best it demonstrates the application of a form of government which is very small and very limited in its powers, which the people have consented to being answerable to.

Any form of government can work, and work well, if 100% of the governed willingly accept it. The problems begin when a growing number of the governed find it unacceptable and have no where else they can go. This generally leads to hostilities which can then eventually lead to violence if no other means of relief is available.