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

clsmooth: "The law enforcement community should be allowed to use profiling in order to deter crime." Very clearly, the law enforcement is the government, so you are saying you're IN FAVOR of government-sponsored discrimination. Reply: I don't think it is very clearly that the law enforcement is the government, since I think government police should be abolished and replaced with private security. So, I could try to get off with that technicality. Also, with the profile thing, when I checked the boxes, they gave no "pop-up" explanation when filling out the questions. I have just discovered that on the profile. clsmooth: "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." Reply: Yes, genetics does play a role in behavior and hence criminality. It's called behavioral genetics, or psycho-genetics. For example, we have "mirror neurons" that play a role in empathy. If you have more of these, you would be less likely to want to inflict pain on others. http://www.reason.com... If you are really interested, there is an article in the Jan. 2005 issue of Psychiatric Services titled "Behavioral Genetics and the Punishment of Crime" (You can read it on Academic Search Elite which is available at most libraries) that goes into some detail about the possibility of an MAOA enzyme that could play a role in impulse aggression and personality disorders. Of course police profiling isn't based on genetics, and genetics isn't the only factor in predisposition of criminality. Just saying you have genes for one of the things described above isn't all their is to personality. How genes are formed in relation to one another and the environment. So if there is a correlation between poverty and crime, if you were trying to find where criminals are, you would patrol poorer areas. (However, the real problem is that police patrol for crimes that are invented by the government, i.e. war on drugs). Likewise, if terrorists are likely to be a product of a certain environment, more of your resources would go to screening people of that environment. clsmooth: Here is what Ayn Rand had to say on the matter:......."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." reply: I like Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books. But I don't worship her, or take her word to be infallible. Since her time, there have been a lot of discoveries in evolutionary psychology and genetics. But whatever differences there are between races isn't really the issue here (and whatever differences there may be does not imply racism--i.e. that one race is "superior" to another). The issue is of probability. Terrorists that are likely to hijack planes are disproportionally arab muslims. Suppose I had three people. An 80-year old white woman, an 8 year old hispanic kid, and a 22 year old muslim, who has traveled extensively through the middle east. Given limited resources, you could only examine the luggage of one of those people. Where do you use your resources? Are they all equally likely to be a hijacker? Of-course not. Is it possible that the 80 year old woman is a terrorist. Yes. It is possible that any one of them is a terrorist, but the probabilities are not the same, because most terrorists (the strain of which that adheres to suicide bombings with airplanes at least) are young, arab-muslim men. That doesn't mean that most young, arab-muslim men are terrorists, just that there is a higher probability that terrorists can be found in that group relative to other groups. clsmooth: 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. reply: What my point really was that to say something like "individualism" is "American" or profiling "Un-american" doesn't really make sense because there are several factors going into what made America and how the idea of "individualism" formed. Likewise, I don't care about the "Americanism" of something, but rather, right and wrong. clsmooth: 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. Reply: I could make several long-winded arguments for capitalism, but discouraging racism wouldn't be one of them. The problem is that the argument doesn't take into consideration the preferences of the customers. Besides, my jets would have sweet leg room. clsmooth: 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! Reply: It's not discrimination I am against, it is unwarranted discrimination. The government already discriminates in ways no one objects too. The voting age is 18. I'm sure, nay I know so, of several people over the age of 18 who probably aren't mature and responsible enough to be voting. Likewise there are several people under the age of 18 who are probably well informed and responsible enough that they would be good civic leaders. But rules are made on general information--this case being, generally, upon reaching the age of 18 years old, people are developed enough to make their own decisions. Your car insurance company discriminates. You might have to pay higher insurance because you are a male or drive a red car, because statistically, males or people who drive red cars are more likely to get into wrecks. It is how asymmetrical information is dealt with. In the case of airport security, it is the same way. We can only search so many people. We don't know everything about everybody, so the odds have to be considered when using our resources. It doesn't mean every muslim gets searched or that everyone else is off the hook, just that the percentages that do are more in line with the percentages of someone being a terrorist. And it's not arresting people. I'm not arguing for internment camps. When you get on a plane you agree to undergo certain security procedures. And those security procedures will be more effective with profiling. If you are afraid of being profiled or searched, you can drive. clsmooth: 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), Reply: And this proves my point. There is a significant likelihood that if another plane is hijacked, it won't be by American-Indians or Latinos. If we set some quota where American-Indians and Latinos are searched a same percentage as 22-year old arab, muslim males, then obviously some resources are being wasted. So there are four options: Don't have any airport security in the name of equality, search each group of people equally, search some people more than others, or search everyone in the name of equality, only the third choice makes sense. 1. I think we both agree that there needs to be some type of security screening. 2. Would be wasting resources. 3. Would lead to the most efficient use of resources. 4. Is a physical impossibility. So, really my argument boils down to that math should be considered if searches must be done.