Police profiling is collectivist, un-American, unconstitutional, and ineffective.

Thanks for taking the debate. The question here is clearly of "POLICE profiling" -- both in the heading of this debate, and in the Debate.org questionnaire. The "police profiling" issue is defined by debate.org as, "The law enforcement community should be allowed to use profiling in order to deter crime." You answered IN FAVOR. Very clearly, the law enforcement is the government, so you are saying you're IN FAVOR of government-sponsored discrimination. So-called "medical profiling" may have some basis, but that's not the question here. The question is "police profiling." While members of certain "racial groups" may indeed have genetics that predispose them to certain medical ailments, by arguing for police profiling, you are saying these genetic characteristics also predispose them to criminality. Here is what Ayn Rand had to say on the matter: "Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage -- the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors." Source: http://aynrandlexicon.com... Rand, whom you cite as an influence, says the belief that "characterological traits are produced and transmitted by [man's] internal body chemistry" is the essence of racism, and "racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." Police profiling fits this description to a tee, and the difference between "medical profiling" and police profiling is obvious, since there are, indeed, genetic differences based on "race," whereas only the collectivist (racist) believes there are moral, social, political, or characterological differences based on "race." POINT 2: How America was founded is indeed apropos -- the subject of the debate includes "profiling is un-American." Now, I chose the parameters of the debate, so if you want to cede this point, I will agree to call it moot. POINT 3: In a free society, Daxtarian Airlines would be perfectly free to discriminate and "profile" on any basis it wanted to. If such discrimination is wrong, as I believe it to be, then Daxtarian Airlines would pay a penalty in the form of lost market share, revenues, and profits. But the government pays no such penalty. Individuals and private groups should be allowed to discriminate at their own expense, but not the government, because it does so at OUR expense -- and "our" includes that segment of the population that is discriminated against! We are all promised equal protection under the law and a republican form of government -- Daxtarian Airlines has nothing to do with these constitutional covenants. POINT 4: Again, the issue is government discrimination, not marketing or medicine. More specifically, the issue is the profiling of Arabs, when the FACT of the matter is that there are radical Muslims of every race (save perhaps American-Indians and Latinos), and the likelihood is that Al Qaeda would recruit from Sudan or Chechnya or China, etc., for another 9/11, rather than using a turban-clad Arab with a prayer rug and "Death to America" tattooed on his forehead.