Alright, but I can say the same thing about you. You are obviously unaware of the new opportunities that have arisen with blockchain technology and how it can be used to reform society.

you don't have "anarchy" if you have 90% rule. Who measure it? Who enforces it? Who defines how long will the rule apply and when would it be OK to vote (?) again? You need governance for that.

I don't know what threshold would be optimal, I chose 90% to leave 10% flexibility since unanimous consensus between 7.5 billion people is pretty unlikely. But we can all agree that the 50%+1 system is pretty totalitarian and exploitative. You have 2 parties trying to tax and rule over eachother. Current democracy doesn't lead to harmony but to social unrest (see current USA political urests).

We can have a decentralized blockchain recorded system to apply votes and have discussions on social issues. With this new technology, the possibilities are limitless.

who's going to force those who don't comply out of the group, if they don't want to leave?

Anyone. Just as if you see a rapist on a street raping somebody, it doesn't take a cop to stop it, any decent citizen can interfere to stop the rape, because most of us already agree that rape is wrong, you don't need a law for that.

how are you going to determine whether someone broke the rules with no judges? Do you intend to engage 100% of groups' population to collectively judge on every single dispute?

Voting on it. Decentralized justice system. Private investigators hired by the plaintiff, and the society will decide based on the evidence if they find that action immoral or not. This concept has already been talked about in libertarian circles. But whereas they advocade for private courts, I would advocate for a public court, as in everyone being a jury.

you will never find any 2 people that will agree on every aspect of life. Inevitably you'll end up dividing society into individuals living on their own.

That is the whole point. I am an individualist, I believe that the individual should be sovereign. If 2 people can't live together, and there is no way to achieve compromise, then they should just break up.

Why keep everyone together in tyranny, when people can live separately in freedom? It does make sense.

And no, there's no universal agreement even on such things as murder, theft, or rape.

There is. The people's voice is the law. If 90% of people decide something is wrong, then it is.

After all what other authority is there other than human will? IF 90% of people agree on something to be wrong, who are you or I to decide that it isn't so.

Certainly what authority does 1 judge have to overrule the will of 90% of the people? After all a constitution should be based on the will of the people.

In this scenario, the constitution will be the people themselves. It's just modernizing society to 21st century standards, and abandoning stone age political structures.