Then why bring it up? Your point was to contest the idea that 'All political power comes from the barrel of a gun.' If you believe them to be categorically different decisions then you are just wasting everyone's time. The nature of categorically different decisions do not change with scale, if they do, then your categories are flawed.

Again, a decision is a political one when the it's decision can be legally enforced by either implicit or explicit violence. That is what makes a decision one of polity. The size of it does not matter, if a million people debate what color a dress is that is not a political decision until a state entity steps in to codify and enforce that social opinion. The gun is already there, it is taken out by the very enforcement of any decision onto anyone who does not aquiese to the decision of the polity.

I'm not saying that democracy isn't possible. I'm saying that all government, including democracy, is a form of authoritarianism. You cannot escape the enforcement of authority, it is implicit within the very nature of the state itself. The question is always who is the primary beneficiary of the state?

You say 'the people' control a democracy in this conception. That is a nonsense phrase based off of your understanding. If someone holds a vote that says 'Income over 1,000,000 a year should be taxed (ignoring for a minute the intricate political economy related to taxes).' and it passes, under your wibbly wobbly rules of democracy, there is nothing preventing those who make over 1,000,000 from creating their own polity where they then vote that the voting requirement is that you must make 1,000,000 dollars a year. These are equally valid polities according to you, despite the fact that one of them is in blatant legal violation of the dictations from the original polity. After all, you said no guns, so they are well within their ability to do this.

Having inconsistent and unequal voting standards absolutely throws a wrench into whatever democracy you try to create. If you do not have at least some form of previously agreed upon legalism, usually defined by a previously elected (or selected) central committee, that has authority over even participants who did not vote for them or did not exist at the time of voting, any democracy will inevitably fall into factional squabbling, through either genuine but repetitive good will debates, or bad faith attempts of sabotage. Hell, just watch the National DSA meetings back in 2019 before the rules were strictly enforced.

These are concepts and problems that have existed and been defined since before Locke and Hobbes, hell this stuff has been understood and discussed since Aristotle. Even if you don't agree with those political theories, it would be at least be mildly interesting if you worked from a common understanding of them than whatever fever-dream conception of polity you are working from.