Timothy Ferris, in The Science of Liberty:
In 1900 there was not a single liberal democracy in the world (since none yet had universal suffrage); by 1950 there were twenty-two.
Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution has an ongoing series of posts in which he highlights “good sentences.” At first the conceit bugged me a bit, as how good can a single sentence be? It’s not like you have space to develop a sensible argument or anything.
But that’s the point, of course. A really good sentence packs a wallop because it fits an enormous amount into very few words. One technique for doing that is to exhibit an underlying assumption that is a remarkable claim in its own right. If I were to have tried to make the point that Ferris makes above, it would have been something like this:
Liberal democracies were established in fits and starts over a period of hundreds of years. The first major steps happened in countries like Britain, the United States, and France, where aristocratic systems were replaced (with different amounts of violence) by rule by popular vote. But I would argue that a true liberal democracy is one that features universal suffrage — every adult citizen has a right to participate. By that standard, there weren’t any liberal democracies in existence in the year 1900; but fifty years later, there were twenty-two.
Makes the point, but it’s a somewhat ponderous collection of mediocre sentences, rather than a single one of immense power. That’s the difference between someone who writes things, like me, and a true writer. I’m trying to learn.
Ferris’s book seems excellent, although I’ve just started reading it. It has a provocative thesis: the Enlightenment values of liberal democracy and scientific reasoning didn’t simply arise together. The emergence of science is rightfully understood as the cause of the democratic revolution. That’s the kind of thing I’d be happy to believe is true, so I’m especially skeptical, but I’m looking forward to the argument.
This is particularly interesting for anyone involved with information and physical complexity. The interplay between the information in several systems determines how concise Ferris can make his line, and how aesthetically pleasant it comes across..etc.
For much the same reasons, poetry has always been a subject of fascination of mine. Poetry (particularly in a language like Arabic) transcends grace. It is an art of communication, and was at one time the language of debate. So when you said
“fits an enormous amount into very few words”
it rang a few bells. A couple of verses can constitute an argument otherwise spanned by volumes. This is not always because the reader is on the same grounds as the author. It is not a partition of bits of information. The reader simply has the capability to arrive at the meaning being conveyed, even though he may be virulently opposed to it. So the finest poetry, in the domain of debate, is that which convinces the opponent with information he *already* possesses.
It’s almost like the original paragraph of prejudice is a ciphertext, from which the truth can be deciphered, with the right key.
That stretches the definition of “good”. I would agree to ambiguous, humorous, thought-provoking, and open-ended. But in some contexts I would rather see honesty, clarity, unambiguity, and up-front.
The statement is engineered to delay the actual agenda until the punch, and to be unclear enough that even radical opponents may not easily counter with rational arguments. These are not virtues in a debate, only in stand-up comedy and in the art of Spin.
I strongly agree with the literal statement, that universal suffrage is a metric for democracy, as are respect for human rights. Other stepping stones to a free democracy include free human property, human welfare, human safety, human health, human education.
Interestingly, most people would agree that slavery is incompatible with our perception of democracy. I can’t lock up my gardener or my carpenter, even though it would be very convenient for me.
Most people would agree that I can’t chase off competing buyers in the supermarket, just so I can buy all the carrots. Nor can I insist that I have a right to pay less for carrots than the supermarket wishes to sell.
*** Some fundamental rights are premises without which all talk of democracy is obviously absurd ***
I would argue that a few fundamentals are missing in US and many other countries:
– Universal suffrage includes prison inmates. You cannot exclude Jews or blacks or Irish or gays or convicts.
– Constitutional rights include occupied or dominated territories.
– Humans are free to migrate regardless of local rules. Just like nobody can stop me from moving from Dallas to Seattle, nobody has the right to prevent somebody from moving from Madras to Copenhagen, or from Lebanon to Jerusalem.
– Universal suffrage includes long term residents. You cannot arbitrarily define a group without voting rights.
– Universal suffrage does not include non-residents. Fair terms of residency are very complicated. Tourists and soldiers on short missions should keep the right to vote at home, maybe 🙂
/Uffe