This seems like dramatically over-complicating the idea. I would expect a prototypical conflict theorist to reason like this:
Political debates have winners and losers—if a consensus is reached on a political question, one group of people will be materially better off and another group will be worse off.
Public choice theory makes black people worse off. (I don’t know if the article is right about this, but I’ll assume it’s true for the sake of argument.)
Therefore, one ought to promote public choice theory if one wants to hurt black people, and disparage public choice theory if one wants to help black people.
This explanation loses predictive power compared to the explanation I gave above. In particular, if we think of conflict theory as “bad things happen because of bad people”, then it makes sense why conflict theorists would think public choice theory makes black people worse off, rather than better off. In your explanation, we need that as an additional assumption.
This seems like dramatically over-complicating the idea. I would expect a prototypical conflict theorist to reason like this:
Political debates have winners and losers—if a consensus is reached on a political question, one group of people will be materially better off and another group will be worse off.
Public choice theory makes black people worse off. (I don’t know if the article is right about this, but I’ll assume it’s true for the sake of argument.)
Therefore, one ought to promote public choice theory if one wants to hurt black people, and disparage public choice theory if one wants to help black people.
This explanation loses predictive power compared to the explanation I gave above. In particular, if we think of conflict theory as “bad things happen because of bad people”, then it makes sense why conflict theorists would think public choice theory makes black people worse off, rather than better off. In your explanation, we need that as an additional assumption.