I read the Becker-Posner blog because they are both extremely smart, extremely opinionated, very articulate, and often spectacularly wrong in the very special way that only utterly, arrogantly brilliant people can be.

In the middle of a discussion of airplane security, Becker had this gem:

Although civil libertarians criticize "profiling" of travelers and others, and government officials deny they engage in it, profiling is a necessary part of any reasonably effective security system. Groups that should be scrutinized carefully differ over time and among region of the world. [...] Young Muslim males of Pakistani and Arab background have been responsible for the vast majority of recent terrorist activities in America, Britain, and continental European countries. [...] . Therefore, young males from these groups should receive especially close scrutiny at airports and other public places. [...] To limit the discomfort and anger caused by profiling, members of the profiled groups should be treated politely and with dignity. They should also be reminded that they too are being protected from terrorist activities by a small fringe.

Those objecting to profiling potential terrorists usually want to subject everyone to the same detailed examination and inquiry. However, when potential terrorists are part of a group that constitutes only a small fraction of the population, searching everyone with the same detailed care at airports or at other venues would be needlessly costly and time consuming. This would slow down and thereby reduce air travel and other vulnerable group activities. It would also lead to loud complaints by those affected after the fear of terrorism had abated.

I don't want to address the arguments for or against racial profiling. I just want to point out that Becker is making two contradictory arguments:

• young Muslim males of Pakistani and Arab backgrounds should be profiled closely, over their own objections if any
• One reason not to profile everybody equally is that people would complain

It's hard for me to see any interpretation other than that the complaints of young Muslims count for less than the complaints of others. I suppose Becker would say that their complaints are valued equally but they have to suck it up for the team, basically. To which I say that a fundamental characteristic of pluralist, democratic cultures must be that nobody is asked to bear more than their fair share of a burden based on attributes that are out of their control. I think the word for that is discrimination.

It may be empirically true that young Muslim males of Pakistani and Arab background are a greater threat to, say, US security than any other group defined by age, ethnicity, gender, and religion. I am skeptical of that claim for several reasons: several other profiles, such as white supremacists and Christian anti-abortion terrorists, compete hard in the rankings; and successful Muslim terrorist groups already include, and are actively recruiting more, people out of that profile.

But even if that were empirically true, any stance by the rest of us other than demanding equal inconvenience and suspicion for all is unacceptable and un-democratic. Saying "sorry, brown guy, but you have to stand in line and get dirty looks and just maybe go into secret detention for a few years and get shipped to Romania for outsourced torture sessions" is the exact opposite spirit of Danish King Christian's classic response to the Nazi invasion: "We'll all have to wear yellow stars." (Of course, he never actually said that. I'm not sure if it qualifies as truthy; regardless, Denmark did indeed have an excellent record of protecting its Jews during the Holocaust.)