And that freedom carries the weight that now our decisions matter more, and help from our peers is less, and we can make shitty decisions that affect our lives. We can be stuck in dead-end jobs, and it will be our doing. We can be addicted to many things, like gambling, and it is our responsibility to breakout from that.
So, in a sense you are right, but in another, it's up to each person to change eternal repetition.
We are free, but only if we act on that freedom.
All representative democracy give us is the ability, collectively, to sack a government that has outlived its welcome for some reason. (What happens after that is a complete crap shoot.)
When opposition parties start to triangulate -- that is, to define their policies in terms of what the government and perceived extreme opposite are doing -- rather than by espousing a concrete ideology or policy platform, we end up with everything converging on one dominant faction's idea of how to do things: a one party state in all but name.
(Which seems to be where we are here in the UK right now, and to a lesser extent in the USA.)
It's not in the definition of autocracy that you should self censor if you live in one. In reality, it is just a given.
Same for theocracy, etc. And there are countless other freedoms taken away in these other government systems.
Also, I don't want you to have total, unrestricted freedom. I don't want you to have the freedom to harm me without consequences =)
So, limited ability to sack a government, and freedom of association, and freedom of commerce are good enough for me, from a practical point of view.