« The most underrated and overrated cultural events of the year | Main | Why do teenagers take too many risks? »
Sorry!
Typepad is swallowing some of your comments as spam; I'm working to liberate them. Our apologies, the problem should be cleared up soon and even right now most comments are getting through. The bottom line is that there are far many more comments on Ron Paul (and the federal budget) than you might have thought. I recommend that you read them all, especially the ones critical of me.
By the way I regard Obama as the most intellectual candidate; having been a law professor is part of that. Of course that needn't make him the best candidate; Woodrow Wilson was an intellectual but a disaster as President. There is no doubt that Ron Paul is very widely read and is an admirable defender of individual liberty. I've also met him and I believe his IQ is high. But if you think that he is intellectual, ask yourself what standards of evidence and procedural rationality he applied when he wrote this. Sorry people, but I have to call 'em as I see 'em. As I said in my previous post, I'm still happy with the idea of protest votes for Paul.
And by the way, as long as I'm courting controversy, here's a study on how much early environment shapes the brain and IQ.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on December 20, 2007 at 07:55 PM in Web/Tech | Permalink
Comments
Shouldn't most libertarians , in fact, be in favor of a North American Union (in the mold of the EU).
I know it would help the people of Michigan, Ohio, an upstate New York.
Posted by: thehova at Dec 20, 2007 8:10:06 PM
Can you be more specific what's wrong with this article? He states some facts - you can find them on the internet - trans-texas corridor, meetings of high officials discussing possible integration, existing laws trying to stop the eminent domain, ceasing some souvereignity by means of international treaty.
He doesn't like non-americans decide on american things (which would be the result of such international treaty) and thinks that the americans shouldn't like it either.
What exactly is bad with the article?
On a related note: please, can you post some Obama's text regarding economics, liberty, constitution etc.? I think it would be instructive to see intellectual position on these topics - which seems to be relevant for the job.
Posted by: andy at Dec 20, 2007 8:16:38 PM
thehova: I think it is partly the question of forced integration vs. voluntary integration and partly the idea, that libertarians prefer no government, while these treaties basically create new inter-national governments (of certain aspects of our life).
Posted by: andy at Dec 20, 2007 8:19:27 PM
Andy, I think most Americans believe the EU to be a large, expensive, and useless organization that takes power away from local sources.
On the contrary, the EU is a remarkably inexpensive organization, that to date, preoccupies itself more with economic harmonization between its member countries than local politics. The EU eliminates many barriers to trade for both US and European companies. And it has created some economic power zones on many borders (for example, Belgium/Netherland, Germany/Austria).
The US can learn from this and create more economic harmonization in North America which would help many cities in midwest (esp. Buffalo, Detroit).
Doesn't government have some responsibility to make trade easier?
Posted by: thehova at Dec 20, 2007 8:31:39 PM
Brussels' politics is the unholiest of politics, may we never descend so far.
Posted by: Riemannian at Dec 20, 2007 8:36:59 PM
andy: what's so silly about that article is how it lumps all support of a trans-national highway with support of a "North American Union" type country. It borders on conspiratism.
Posted by: ben g at Dec 20, 2007 8:40:05 PM
Just wanted to post some links here that would be advisable to inspect:
Ron Paul on free trade: http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=12
Ron Paul on national souvereighnity: http://ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=4
thehova: The problem of these agreements is that they do not only facilitate free trade. They do many more things which are definitely objectionable. You can definitely be pro-free trade and against these agreements at the same time - because you are against the contents that have nothing to do with free trade.
You may ask yourself a question, why NAFTA document is thousands pages long instead of one small paragraph saying 'let's there be free trade.
It's the same with EU: actually, Estonia practically completely eliminated their tariffs in the 90's. Upon entering EU they enacted thousands and thousands of new tariffs and regulations. Calling this free-trade sounds rather orwellian in this context...
Posted by: andy at Dec 20, 2007 8:40:44 PM
Q: "What exactly is bad with the article?"
A: "The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union."
Posted by: Cliff at Dec 20, 2007 8:44:49 PM
Andy, I agree with you that an organization like the EU should only concern itself with making trade easier.
And the EU showed some signs that it wanted to do more in the last decade. But the people have shot down such attempts. I can never see the EU growing into a larger entity (the United States of Europe). Europeans would never allow it.
Posted by: thehova at Dec 20, 2007 8:46:06 PM
"But if you think that he is intellectual, ask yourself what standards of evidence and procedural rationality he applied when he wrote this."
What standards of one being 'intellectual' are you questioning here? Standards of evidence for what? A 'NAFTA superhighway'? Perhaps the Alberta Infrastructure and Transportation Department is a good enough source for you? They don't seem to be very shy about it, nor about the North South Trade Corridor or the Canamex Trade Corridor (of course, you can always go right to the Canamex or the North American Forum on Integration website for more information what they're planning). Canadians have no bones whatsoever talking about the roads and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America acts like they don't know what's going on.
Of course, they portray this as if the individual states are all just willing partners in the negotiations, but with the White House doing all the negotiating, just how willing do they appear to be?
So again, what standards of one being 'intellectual' are you questioning here with regards to Ron Paul?
Posted by: Scott at Dec 20, 2007 8:46:38 PM
Tyler, I feel you re: Paul; he gives me the creeps! He seems like a weird, conspiracy theorist--definitely not my choice for the spokesman of libertarianism! We need another Milton Friedman.
Also, re: Obama, I agree also, he seems intellectual, and he comes off as likable and a cool dude. Terrible reason to vote for someone though. Obama's rhetoric regarding economic policy has been pretty frightening.
It's all moot anyway, Paul isn't going to win the primaries, let alone the presidential election.
Posted by: GunnerUnit at Dec 20, 2007 9:13:15 PM
From what I read, the article's only talking about how kids did on IQ tests when they were 4 and half years old! That doesn't mean that IQ well be as strongly related to upbringing when the children are mature. Indeed, most studies find that long-term IQ is much more heritable and less elastic with respect to environmental influence.
Posted by: kap kool at Dec 20, 2007 9:15:48 PM
I have a difficult time accepting the man who drew a parallel between the "physical violence" that occurred at Virginia Tech and the "verbal violence" of Don Imus, as if there were some sort of equivalence between gunning down unarmed kids and using the phrase "nappy headed hos", as being in any way intellectual or even a serious person to any degree.
Then again, if you're saying that he's the most intellectual, relative to the other candidates--well, that's a different sort of argument I suppose. One that is rather more cynical of politicians in general than complimentary of Obama in particular.
Posted by: Adam at Dec 20, 2007 9:27:34 PM
Cliff: virtually borderless travel - that's one of goals of spp, isn't it?
cross national bureaucracy: nafta already does that, prediction it will be more of it
currency: prediction, probably based on similar evolution in Europe (trade union, problems with volatility lead to cooperation between central banks, which leads to monetary union)
Thus: Paul makes prediction (based e.g. on very similar situation in Europe), you disagree, thus Paul doesn't apply standards of evidence and procedural rationality? According to this article it seems pretty rational based on real-world evidence. Just don't call it conspiracy, call it common knowledge - as Paul did on the cnn/youtube debate. Can you argue his prediction is wrong?
thehova: 'European constitution' had to be abolished because the europeans didn't vote for it. Thus, I think about 2 weeks ago a similar document was signed by the executives without asking the people. The people have no more say what will happen to EU.
Posted by: andy at Dec 20, 2007 9:31:49 PM
Hey Tyler. I'm actually surprised that you're convinced that the massive amount of comments on your blog critical of Paul are anything more than spam-bots. This is a well-known phenomenon at this point.
As a thought experiment, imagine posting a blog critical of Clinton or Huckabee or Romney etc. Do you believe that you'd get the same number of comments? I highly doubt it.
Posted by: Charlie at Dec 20, 2007 9:54:00 PM
Are we all really assuming that it's automatically a good thing for someone to be "an intellectual"? And that it's a specially good thing for a President to be an intellectual?
Er, I beg to differ on both counts. As far as I'm concerned, "intellectual" is just a description of a certain sort of temperament -- "he lives in his head," that kind of person. I've reached this conclusion because I've met an awful lot of stupid intellectuals, and because I've known a lot of very smart and humane people who weren't intellectuals at all.
Anyway, as for me, I don't want intellectuals (as a type anyway) running much of anything. They can make pretty interesting contributions sometimes, provided you know how to take 'em. (Big grain of salt.) But put one in charge of something and it's likely to go down the tubes while the guy in charge wastes time chasing his thought processes ...
Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Dec 20, 2007 10:02:04 PM
T: After reading the comments, I would say, if anything, that TYPEPAD is not swallowing up ENOUGH of them as spam. Holy Crap!!
Posted by: angus at Dec 20, 2007 10:16:19 PM
@Tyler,
I would agree that the article posted is not very intellectual. However, Paul has stated his reasons for opposing SPP clearly in the debates and other areas. He doesn't find any of this "NAU" stuff likely to happen any time in the near future. He sees it as a philosophy which American elites have adopted, and will be trying to push on the American people. He is trying to oppose it as early as he can, because he strongly disagrees with it.
As far as this "conspiracism" goes, have we forgotten Iraq already? How about the Gulf of Tonkin? There are real, documented conspiracies in government, and they are often terribly destructive. This isn't some tinfoil-hat conspiracy with aliens and men in black, its just a philosophy of ever-expanding government being taken to its logical conclusion by people who believe in that philosophy and are in positions of power.
Ron Paul started warning people that the Iraq war was in the works sometime around 1998. He's also been speaking out against contrived reasons for a war with Iran for years. While the latter event no longer seems as likely, you cannot say his warnings should not have been heeded.
@thehova,
Doesn't government have some responsibility to make trade easier?
Well, government is what prevents trade in the first place, by mandating certain currencies be used and erecting trade tariffs. So yes, I'd say it has a responsibility not to do something as incredibly stupid as placing harmful sanctions on its own citizens. I just don't think its necissary to create another layer of government in order to do that.
Its like, if government program A is harmful and totally counter-productive, we have to create government program B in order to neutralize A. I know that due to the political climate, sometimes things like that are necissary. But that doesn't stop it from being really, really stupid.
Posted by: G at Dec 20, 2007 10:21:13 PM
I think Michael Blowhard makes a good point.
From what I've read, the greatest/good presidents tended to not be intellectual.
I think Machiavelli wrote something on the subject. (I'm paraphrasing here) He argued that it's better for the prince to know how to lead instinctively rather than learn about leadership and apply principles (as an intellectual would).
Posted by: thehova at Dec 20, 2007 10:23:45 PM
The president who came to office with the finest reputation and the most solid track record of prior accomplishments was Herbert Hoover. He was undone by an economic disaster beyond his control, as will be the next President.
Posted by: at Dec 20, 2007 10:38:49 PM
Tyler, what do you think makes Obama either intellectual or at least more so than the other candidates? He is relatively quiet, reserved, and does not generally issue polemics. Some people take this sort of demeanor as an indication of wisdom or intellectualism. That's pretty shallow though.
He hasn't come up with particularly detailed plans. He doesn't seem to be a policy wonk. He skips votes on major issues. He is not a great orator. Nothing he has written sets him apart. He's just an affable guy who is young, handsome, and optimistic. How is he especially intellectual? What do you mean by saying he is intellectual and what standards do you use to evaluate how intellectual a particular individual is?
Posted by: Obama the Intellectual? at Dec 20, 2007 10:42:29 PM
"Smart people believe weird things, because they're good at defending beliefs they arrived at for nonsmart reasons."
Posted by: at Dec 20, 2007 10:44:07 PM
Hello Professor Cowen,
I'm a Canadian who reads your blog regularly, and in the spirit of full disclosure, a Ron Paul supporter. I'd just like to point out that here in Canada, we do not view the SPP as a conspiracy theory. The threats to sovereignty that Ron Paul accurately describes in the article are the subject of intense debate in our government ( http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c6291848-5f41-4b72-831a-2e889cd6bb9 ), in our media and are actively protested (at the Montebello meeting this summer in Quebec: http://maritimes.indymedia.org/mail.php?id=17599 ). The provincial government of Alberta's official website has posted maps of integrated trade corridors including one labeled "NAFTA Superhighway" that coincidentally matches Ron Paul's quite closely ( http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/2760.htm ) .
The SPP is not a conspiracy theory. It has serious implications for Canada's energy independence from the USA and poses significant threats to our political sovereignty. Ron Paul is the only American politician that is even discussing this issue, which has been the subject of raucous parliamentary committees here in Canada. The SPP is strongly opposed by the Council of Canadians, one of the oldest and most respected NGOs in Canada ( http://canadians.org/integratethis/backgrounders/guide/index.html ).
You would do well to research your points a little more, and provide a more substantive argument as to why Ron Paul is "anti-intellectual" and prone to conspiracy theories. This might require a little reading on politics outside of the mainstream American media. Might I suggest the mainstream Canadian media.
Posted by: T2 at Dec 20, 2007 10:45:03 PM
Hey, anyone else want to join me in proclaiming themselves an anti-intellectual? Well, that may be going a little too far. But I'd happily say that I'm automatically suspicious of intellectuals, and that I consider them guilty until proven otherwise. Guilty of what? Oh, generally speaking, of loving ideas more than people, of living too much in their heads, and of tending to think that if the world doesn't conform to their ideas, then the world is to be blamed.
Ideas are fun and all, but I do tend to like a person who has got them in some perspective ...
Anyway: I vote that we not take it for granted that "anti-intellectual" is a bad thing to be. Anglo-American culture has tended to be verrrrrry skeptical of intellectuals and intellectuality, and to favor common sense over ideas, and I think a good case can be made that that skepticism has been part of our strength.
Posted by: MIchael Blowhard at Dec 20, 2007 10:52:12 PM
OK, sorry, I'll shut up now.
Posted by: Michael Blowhard at Dec 20, 2007 10:53:47 PM
