The people still elect their representatives in a republic. They might not make a direct decision, but they make a decision to give power to those who will make decisions. A direct democracy has the potential to make the votes of 49 people effectively useless if the other 51 agree on everything and oppose the 49 on everything. In a republic that has a checks and balances system, perhaps a constitution, etc. that 49 has a chance at getting their views through (as do the 51 on other issues) even if the other 51 disagree with the 49 on everything.
Those examples are merely ad hominem attacks on the founding fathers in this context because they aren't relevant to their governing preferences. A lot of that is due to what was socially acceptable at the time.
Right. You'd rather be screwed over by a SINGLE individual. Your logic of somehow achieving a higher level of intelligence through representation, even though you don't trust the very people who put the person in office, defies logic.
I'm not really proposing that we vote on every single governmental decision. But on anything of great significance, like whether we should be occupying Iraq or Afghanistan, or whether we should spend billions to bail out corporations, those are issues I personally would prefer to vote on. Fortunately for us technology continues to advance and more frequent voting becomes all that much more practical if we chose to do so.
Noo. Again, you vote for representatives. So you are still playing a role in the decision making process and as you accepted below, even in your version of direct dem you'd have representation at some level- somewhere where you pass on the decision making process. And no it does not defy logic- these are heavily discussed issues in the realm of political philosophy and when people who write and think about these things for all their lives, including some of the most famous pro-freedom philosophers, to say I am being illogical is foolish. You can also look at it statistically and see the benefits of representation from a voting standpoint for minority groups.
What is big and is not big is subjective and therein lies one of many problems with your system.
I am not sure there is an inherent value in democracy that maintains peace. Perhaps the added utility of choice might lead to that, but I am not sure. I can say with confidence, however, that peaceful transition of power is not limited to democracies nor is democracy completely resistant from violent takeover. No system of government endorses violent takeover (or plans it), but they usually happen when someone wants power, the people starve, etc. Someone can violently takeover a democratically controlled government too.
The events of recent times are only correlationary evidence against non-democracies, but not actual causal relationships (at least not proven just by their existence). You can take another correlationary example in China where you would probably agree with me that there is little coup risk right now. Not saying democracies don't promote peace, but I am also saying I don't know if they do. Not something that is intuitive most likely. Also, the question arises with this on when a coup is justified. Sucession (which might be seen as some sort of overthrow) was justified by the founding fathers and anyone for self-determination will possibly be open to it.
That is not the point I was making with free trade- instead that the benefits of trade (and subsequent loss of those benefits upon a declaration of war [should trade be deterred which it almost always is]) between two countries increases the costs of war. Your example here might actually not promote peace if people realize they want democracy instead of communism, dictatorship, etc. and revolt. Arguably not a bad thing, but it isn't an argument against an overthrow or for domestic peace.
