Then you have a problem. If you were a teen it would be understandable to have naive and idealistic views. But at your age, you should know better.
There's literally everything wrong with almost every paragraph you wrote, it would take too long to debunk it all. So let me just say:
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.
who's going to force those who don't comply out of the group, if they don't want to leave?
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?
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.
And no, there's no universal agreement even on such things as murder, theft, or rape. Is reckless driving casing death a murder, or just accident? Drunken brawl resulting in death? Is infringing intellectual property a theft or not? You get the gist
Then you have a problem. If you were a teen it would be understandable to have naive and idealistic views. But at your age, you should know better.
There's literally everything wrong with almost every paragraph you wrote, it would take too long to debunk it all. So let me just say:
And no, there's no universal agreement even on such things as murder, theft, or rape. Is reckless driving casing death a murder, or just accident? Drunken brawl resulting in death? Is infringing intellectual property a theft or not? You get the gist