Economic Thought

Last night, I gave a lecture on chapter three of Reisman’s book, Capitalism.  The lecture was given to the San Diego Mises Group, and was on environmentalism.  While lecturing on Capitalism to a Mises Group is almost like preaching to the choir (I say almost because Reisman is not a “pure” Misesian), I figured that this topic would probably be the most controversial of the entire lecture series; not all Misesians share the same ideas when it comes to the environment.  We also get a few non-libertarians every once in a while (last night we got a young woman who was interested in some “aesthetic group”, but mistook us for that group—she was not a libertarian, and while she defended environmentalism, it could have been a pleasant discussion…), so they always manage to give some life to the debate.

This is the second lecture I’ve given on the book, and while the first one went rather well (well, at least I think so), this was absolutely horrible.  Despite asking everyone to avoid debate until after I finished my presentation, the lecture was consistently interrupted.  For the most part, these interruptions consisted of people criticizing Reisman for not taking into account certain “caveats”, and at the same time completely missing Reisman’s point.

For example, Reisman critiques the argument that the threats presented by nuclear waste make nuclear technology undesirable.  The argument refers to the dumping of nuclear waste in dumps in the desert, because the radioactivity effectively ruins whatever parcel of land it’s dumped in.  Reisman, in turn, suggests that this is untrue.  The desert is used to dump nuclear waste because the opportunity cost isn’t high enough to dissuade entrepreneurs from doing so.  Reisman is using nuclear waste disposal as an example to show that the value of land is decided by the individual who owns it, and therefore the dumping of nuclear waste does not represent a “waste” of that land.  It is a purely economic argument.  If you want, you can exchange “nuclear waste” for “baby diapers”, or “sewage disposal”, or any other type of undesirable waste disposal.

Somehow, Reisman’s point got distorted, and a debate raged on whether or not nuclear power is cost-effective in a free-market (and, I admit, I fed the fire, because I didn’t make clear that that wasn’t Reisman’s point, and instead I defended the viability of nuclear power in a free-market [and I still do]).

In any case, the debate quickly degenerated into a monologue, as the specific person I was debating (a Misesian, by the way) monopolized the discussion.  Every time I attempted to bring up a counter-argument he shut me down, before I could finish my point, by claiming that I “had not read enough on the subject” (as if he knew how much I read).  Then, he would bring up ludicrous cases against nuclear technology, including,

1. A nuclear power plant in Detroit used coolant which was potentially explosive if it mixed with air (while true, I’m not sure how this within itself is all that relevant; we all know that entrepreneurs are looking forward to having their investments blow up, right?  My point is that we also have to look at the probability of the coolant system failing, or the consequence of an explosion in the coolant system—i.e. the consequences of an explosion in the power plant).
2. People in Detroit were being killed by uranium rods (which is a completely ambiguous claim—who was being speared?  Powerplant workers?)

Anyhow, I digress.  Ultimately, the discussion became so awkward that I couldn’t really formulate a point, because I was afraid that he would criticize some mundane detail in my argument (sorry, I can’t cover every possible detail, no matter how irrelevant or mundane to the general point).

In any case, the woman ended up leaving.  I’m sure that it had less to do with the style of the debate, and more to do with the fact that she just wasn’t interested in a bunch of libertarians debating amongst themselves (well, let’s be fair, it was hardly a debate; like I said, it was a monologue).  She did pose some good, albeit common, criticism, but I really couldn’t respond to her because this same individual consistently interrupted by response (I’m pretty sure I got through about two sentences).

I’m not sure what we were talking about after the “lecture”, but we got back on the topic of the previous debate and I was talking about environmentalism and whatnot.  I tell this guy that I actually was trying to present a counterpoint to the woman’s criticism.  This asshole has the gall to say that I had not presented a clear point since I first started showing up to the Mises meet-up.

This is me blowing off steam, by the way.

I guess I need to figure out how to properly deal with people like this guy.  My main weakness is probably wanting to defend every single part of the argument, even if it has nothing to do with what I originally said.  I suppose it would be more effective for me to simply “concede the point” for the sake of returning to my actual argument, but to a certain degree this whittles away at my reputation.

I am generally pretty good at being an asshole myself, but I guess to a certain degree I do see this guy as a knowledgeable person that I can learn from (he is much older than I am, and generally brings up good points—I am not saying the content of his argument is bad, I am criticizing his method of argumentation).  For that reason, maybe I have been holding back on how much of a dick I can be.  I am seriously reconsidering this position (and, I did to some degree in that debate, when I ridiculed his position on slavery).

From my experience in college, this is the method professors deal with upstart students (including myself), so maybe it is the best route to take.

For those with experience, what techniques do you employ?