Additional counterargument to democracy

[Buddybenj]

When a person says that citizens elect politicians who run tax programs, the website responds by arguing that a vote does not necessarily imply agreement to a politician's tax programs. Another argument is Michael Huemer's Bar Tab example in Chapter 4 of The Problem of Political Authority, which attempts to demonstrate that democratic decisions are not always ethically binding or enforceable. Imagine you go to a bar with some of your friends and, when the bill comes, your friends take a vote and a majority believe that you should pay for everyone's drinks. Would you feel ethically obligated to pay? What if they only made you pay for half of the drinks, and the cost of the other half was distributed across everyone else?

People may respond by saying that 10 friends is not analogous to 300 million people. What if I have 100 friends, or 1,000? Where does democracy become binding and enforceable? Why is the number of people even relevant?

Here's the original quote from the book:

You have gone out for drinks with a few of your colleagues and graduate students. You are all busy talking about philosophy, when someone raises the question of who is going to pay the bill. A number of options are discussed. A colleague suggests dividing the bill evenly among everyone at the table. You suggest that everyone pay for his own drinks. A graduate student then suggests that you pay for everybody's drinks. Reluctant to spend so much money, you decline. But the student persists: 'Let's take a vote.' To your consternation, they proceed to take the vote, which reveals that everyone at the table except you wants you to pay for everybody's drinks. 'Well, that settles it', declares the student. 'Pay up.'