My responses are going to get redundant, but here goes:
In Democracy:
You pay tons of taxes and spend hours filling out archaic forms.
How does the form of government affect the amount of taxes you pay? Monarchs level taxes, too-- the people just have less control over the degree of taxation in a monarchy.
"Endless forms" are more a symptom of a complex bureaucracy than of a democratic government. Maintaining any kind of organizational structure over millions of people is going to require quite a bit of paperwork.
You vote on issues to affect a faraway state
In a representative democracy (i.e., republic) like the United States, you rarely vote directly on issues at all. If you are voting directly on an issue, it's in a state referendum. The issues in national elections are generally those effecting the entire nation (or, to use a somewhat archaic but more descriptive term, "commonwealth"), and are of interest to everyone.
Your representatives pander to rich interest groups and spend tax money on nice sports cars
Is this worse than the aristocracy getting rich off of taxes and levies imposed on the common people, who have no influence whatsoever? At least corrupt representatives can be voted out of office.
You are only allowed to say things insofar they don't offend innocent secular humanists or whiny christians
This is simply not true. And a monarchy is hardly more likely to protect freedom of expression better than a republic.
You vote for people who only car about expanding their wealth or power
Again, this is a sort of high-school cynicism that bashes the "establishment" with too broad a brush. And to the extent that it is true that some (certainly not all, probably not a majority) elected officials are primarily interested in their own gain, at least you get to vote for them. What's the alternative?
You go to war to defend a foreign nation
Again, how is this a criticism against democracy/republicanism in general? The United States makes a bad decision, therefore the whole form of government is illegitimate?
You provide tax money in the form of aid reaching the billions a year to said nation.
Again... so what? Elected representatives make decisions on how to spend the national wealth. Would it be better to have a monarch, not accountable to anyone, make these decisions? Would that lead to wiser or more responsible decisionmaking? History suggests that in most cases, it would not.
You lose your right to own guns because they look mean and mean things are evil. Objectively.
1. Do you think you would have any "rights" at all under an absolute monarchy?
2. This is simply not true. The last time I checked, the Second Amendment has not been repealed.
3. Opposition to gun ownership might also have something to do with the fact that guns are frequently used to kill people, aside from looking mean.
You lose the right to defend yourself.
1. Once again, where do you think "rights" come from? Do you think that your rights would be more secure if they were entirely dependent on the whim of a dictator?
2. This is also not true. I don't know of a single state that does not recognize the right of self-defense in appropriate situations.
You haved to worry about getting sued because you said something a lawyer or corporation didn't like.
What does this have to do with the democratic/republican form of government?
You have to deal with incompetent banks and insurance companies
Incompetent banks are a consequence of a democratic system of government? You were really running out of ideas toward the end, weren't you?
You can't eat fish from the rivers because the rivers are polluted
I really can't even think of an intelligent response to this one. How does a democratic system encourage pollution?
As an aside, I think that some of your objections are more applicable to capitalism than to democracy, and they may be to some degree legitimate in that context. But, whatever Ronald Reagan would have you believe, capitalism and democracy are not synonymous.
Does anyone still think that Democracy is the answer?
Personally I'm not a great fan of democracy (/republicanism, because there really is no such thing as a pure democracy). It's messy, inefficient, and tends to break down unless the voting population is sufficiently engaged in the process, which has not been the case in the United States for some time now. It also rests on the irrationally egalitarian assumption that every citizen's opinion is as valid as every other citizen's, and that the will of the majority will be correct in most cases. However, it's a more risk-averse strategy than monarchy. A good monarch can rule much more effectively than a democracy, to the greater benefit of all the population. However, a bad monarch can be really, really bad. You're also stuck with a monarch for a long time, generally a matter of several decades, and there's no error-correcting mechanism short of bloody rebellion. Democracy avoids these extremes by keeping society drifting in the doldrums of mediocrity where change, either for good or bad, is more difficult to bring about. On balance, I suppose I prefer the latter approach, but the ideal situation would be to be ruled by an intelligent, benevolent monarch who was actively engaged in the business of government and genuinely concerned with the best interests of the people. If only God were real.
But you're right, you should never clean up your own mess, and obviously you can't vote to change anything, can you? Whatever.
(and I don't have to give up modern medical technology etc.)