Your points? You haven't been making any! All you've been doing is treating the assertions that democracy is susceptible to corruption and anarchism less so as almost axiomatic, backing it with little more than "look at how bad things are!" (while ignoring all other factors that created the current state of things) and a need for an alternative, while being dishonest about what democracy is.

My point remains the same. Democracy. Is. Not working. It's not working. You can dress it up, blame all sorts of external factors and claim that others are being dishonest all you want. It's not working. We need to look at options.

All forms of governance, with no exceptions, require delegation. But as soon as you delegate, there is room for corruption, and therefore a need to prevent it. In other words, there is always going to be a minority of people mandated with authority and a need for mechanisms to ensure that they don't abuse that authority. And any system of accountability that involves fewer people than the public, is going to be more corruptible than one that does involve the public.

All forms require delegation. That's obvious without pointing to something like a dictatorship. Also obvious that delegating leads to opening up room for corruption, that is why the term 'agreement' is used when referring to anarchism as one possible solution to look at. There is not always going to be a minority of people mandated with authority. I am assuming that you are referring to the people who police those rules? They follow the instructions. Then you repeat yourself and continue to describe democracy.

Even anarchism would, without a democratic core, inevitably decay into a dictatorship in all but name. By insisting that anarchism is distinct from democracy, you're contributing to undermining the very thing you're trying to achieve.If you're trying to say that there are some very fundamental problems with current implementations of democracy, I wholeheartedly agree. But do put it that way, then. Democracy is entirely too important to be reduced to a lure for replies.

No, you are just theorising, hypothesizing and comparing anarchy with democracy too much. It has a democratic core, sure, but only in the sense that the majority rule (of everyone, not a small majority) decides on issues.

I never stated that anarchy was the solution..I said it is one possibility to look at. Neither am I stating that there is one universal solution. I am simply putting it that your beloved democracy is not working. Not now. Not in its current form. An overhaul is badly needed, solutions should be looked at and not ignored. The flaws are being ignored by those benefiting from it.

It's not working.