Ok. I confess. I used democracy (little d) and set it up with a broad definition. I knew by doing this that some people would interpose their own feelings and ideals surrounding Democracy (capital D) and would reject my simple train of thought. I did it on purpose to spark some discussion.
I don't see how feelings have to enter into it at all. You're suggesting a criteria that makes no distinction, so what good is it?
All frackles are gribbles.
All danvies are gribbles.
All kintars are gribbles.
Therefore describing something as a "gribble" adds no useful information, because everything's a gribble. You'd have to name something that's not a gribble for gribble-dom to have any significance.
My sole point is that no government can exist without the consent of the governed. It's just not possbile.
That only holds, though, if we presume "the governed" are of a single mind and will take unanimous action when it feels like it. Since actions are performed by individuals, not masses, a dictatorial government can maintain its power by cracking down on individuals. What you've said is akin to saying there's no such thing as armed robbery, just people who freely choose to give their money to someone who points a gun at them. If I'm consenting to anything I don't get killed stopping, then "consent" means nothing and, worse, it doesn't matter if I throw my life away, because it doesn't count unless every single one of my fellow citizens acts the same way.
If the people accept governance, regardless of how terrible that governance is or how cooercive the means of establishing rule, then they have had a hand in determining how they are governed. The other option is rejection. There is no other way. Once established, ALL governments rule by power of death, no matter how beneficial the governance is to society at large.
Then everything that happens to an society is the fault of the citizens who didn't subject themselves to fatal risk in an effort to stop it, I guess. As for ALL governments ruling by the power of death... okay, sure, but we're back to gribbles. It's a meaningless statement which I guess is supposed to get people outraged or something. Arguably, even individuals live by the power of death. I could, if I wanted, kill my neighbor and take his stuff. He could do the same to me. We have, however, implicitly agreed to a social contract where neither of us does this, with the understanding that breaking this contract will trigger other citizens to follow a codified legal ritual to deal with the killer, through the use of police and courts and jails and such.
Chew on this: every human being feeds on death and survives only through causing death. Dramatic, no? It's perfectly true, though. Since we can't live off photosynthesis, we have to let plants do it, and then animals absorb this stored energy by eating the plants, and we absorb the energy by eating the animals and the plants. Mmmmmm, pass me another plate of death, and the mustard.
You live in the U.S. so you're already ahead the curve, globally speaking, and there are likely at least a billion people who would gladly change places with you. If all governments are functionally identical, would you have any objection to such an exchange? If so, why?