> You seem to be asserting those individuals behave in a manner that protects their group power rather than helping individuals.

No, I don't. First, there is the general notion of collective behavior. I can tell you almost exactly the result of a thousand coin tosses, but I can't tell you the result of one. Second, you see a tradeoff where there isn't any. Thirdly, power is something that is best achieved in a group (e.g. unions). Finally, you assume individuals behave in a rational behavior to maximize their expected utility over a long term, while it's been shown that people don't behave this way even in the short term. Most people would often lose 1$ to gain absolutely nothing other than some internal psychological reward.

I must say, though, that responding to this kind of statements is hard. It's like you're saying, "a photon is either a particle or a wave; it can't be both; please make up your mind". Where do I even begin? Your premises about human behavior -- both as individuals and in groups -- are false, and then you argue about the conclusions. Just to give you a little bit of the basics, people make choices, but those choices are in large part influenced (and by that I don't mean 100% determined) by social influences.

> Can you make it explicit? If an individual can gain $1 in personal benefit, but transfer $X from his group to an out group, what value of X must be chosen so that the average person will be indifferent? I.e., how much money do you believe I'm willing to turn down for the cause of white power?

Sure. You will turn down exactly the amount you think you're expected to gain if the cause of white power wins. I mean, this isn't some theory. Black people in power means that more collective resources are used to advance black concerns. Black concerns (like white concerns) are unique, because, statistically, their experience is different.

> Do you believe (1) is feasible? It's a simple yes or no question. Assuming it's not feasible, which of (2) and (3) do you favor? Let me guess - more wordplay that ignores the simple arithmetic and uncomfortable question?

I'm not ignoring your math, but you're applying kindergarten math to graduate physics. It's like me saying, well, the speed of light is C, and you're going this way and she's going that way so C + C = 2C!

In a social system there are feedback mechanisms. If you're increasing the number of educated blacks, who knows what's going to happen specifically in tech? Maybe the tech sector will grow. Maybe bio-med will grow, and black people will go there. But yes -- to answer your question directly -- if, say, Asians have a disproportionately large portion of power (as a whole; it doesn't matter how its divided among sectors), then a desired result is that they'll have relatively less of it. I really don't see the problem. To me it sounds like you're saying, but if we'll let blacks vote then you're kicking whites out of the decision process.

Also, I don't understand your implied horror at "kicking Asians out" while you're seemingly fine with kicking blacks out, because that's what's really happening. If someone must be kicked out, I'd rather all groups would get a share of the kicks.