Archive for April 4th, 2006
Race and Public Choice Theory
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session on 04/04/2006
Someone in Public Choice asked me how I could have specialized in Public Choice Theory in grad school and base my politics on race.
He points out, correctly, what Public Choice argues that political behavior is based on PERSONAL, not group, interests.
How can I agree that Public Choice leads to many correct conclusions, yet my motivation is racial, not personal.
I have a short answer to this:
“The essential weakness of Public Choice theory is that it cannot explain why people VOTE in national elections.”
“It takes effort, and on big election days standing in line takes a LOT of effort.”
“The probability of your vote affecting the outcome, and the resultant effect on YOU, is about zero.”
“So:”
“1) What gets people out to vote is a COMMUNAL imperative, a sincere belief that something more than their own interests are at stake.”
“The fact is that a person’s communal beliefs DO tend to coincide with his personal biases. So a lawyer who votes Democratic because of his personal interests as a trial lawyer genuinely BELIEVES trial lawyers are right for his COMMUNITY.”
“Why?”
“2) Because all his influences tend in that direction. But it is not a ‘rational’ choice based on self-interest. He believes what he supports is genuinely good for the group. Otherwise it would not be rational for him, in personal interest terms, to vote at all. The probability that he will affect the final outcome and therefore his OWN interests by going to all the trouble of voting are so close to zero as makes no difference.”
“As usual, my disagreement always begins with something people IN the field do not even notice.”
“Your disagreement with my communal or racial ideas is probably related to this same mistake that is fundamental to Public Choice.”
“Public Choice, with its unfortunate initials PC, is based based on correct point 2), but it totally ignores Poiint 1).”
“Public Choice reaches many correct conclusions because it relates the natural tendency of people to believe that what is good for them is good for everybody. It rejects the concept of group loyalty.”
But this rejection of communal loyalty is disproven by the existence of the vote itself.
Note to Me From a Doctor
Posted by Bob in History, How Things Work on 04/04/2006
“Amazing!”
“They have finally given up trying to find ANY genetic effects of the atomic bomb blast. That
has been the prime intention of the whole 60 year ( so far ) inrtensive reesarch, and finally they have had to give it up. Just couldn’t find anything after all these years and millions of dollars, and perennial hints that there were all kinds of genetic effects and monsters to be soon found.”
“Sometimes things finally come back to make sense, even people.”
-
You are currently browsing the archives for Tuesday, April 4th, 2006
Bob’s Books
Bob's first book - 1976
A Plague On Both Your HousesBob's second book - 1982
THE NEW RIGHT PAPERSBob's deadliest book - 2004
Why Johnny Can't Think:
America's Professor-PriesthoodWhy Johnny Can't Think ebook zip
pwrd: Phu=9Ad5
Dennis Got My Point
Posted by Bob in Coaching Session, Comment Responses, How Things Work on 04/04/2006
Dennis got my point:
“If China does become the dominant power, it will be by simply outlasting the White folk. They will outlast us, not by destroying us, but by waiting till we destroy ourselves.”
“China doesn’t engage in pointless foreign wars. China does not engage in colonizing other nations, and bringing in masses of third world immigrants.”
“China just looks after its own interests, within its borders, and nothing more. This alone is all they do, and this alone is all they need to do. ”
Comment by Dennis
As I said in the article below, the Chinese may inherit hte world, but they will never conquer it.
To ullustrate Dennis’s point here, notice that the minute Eastern Europe got rid of hte Communists, they began to be asked, “Are you ready for immigrants yet?”
If Vietnam or China had just thrown out the Communists, it would never OCCUR to anybody to ask,
“Are you ready for immigrants yet?”
When a black country gains its independence, nobody asks,
“Are you ready for immigrants yet?”
But for Russia and Eastern Europe it is so natural a question no one thinks to ask why it is being asked.
It is taken for granted that, since they are WHITE countries, massive third world immigrationis the next step:
” Liberals and respectable cosnervatives say there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.”
“The Netherlands and Belgium are more crowded than Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.”
“Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to “assimilate,” i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.”
“What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?”
“How long would it take anyone to realize I’m not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?”
“And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn’t object to this?”
“But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.”
They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.
“Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.”
All ythe WHITE countries that overthrow Communism are immediately asked if they are ready for massive third-world immigration. It is such a natural question nobody has ever asked why it comes up.
7 Comments