[Wally_Kalbacken]

Excellent point. I am waiting to see the right set of circumstances get litigated in this kind of setting - when rational discrimination is supported by an accurate assessment of risk based on race. I don’t know if 7x is sufficient, but I have lon suspected there is outrageous disparity in things like motor vehicle accident rates. Let’s assume there was a situation, perhaps in auto insurance, where one subtype was 32x more likely to be involved in an accident in a given period - would it be acceptable for a legislature to forbid using that subtype characteristic to segment the insurance market? In almost all cases we assume that there is irrational and unlawful discirmination by race, what happens when there is rational discrimination by race, and can the disparity be so great that a law prohibiting such discrimination is itself irrational?

[TampaDude]

“In almost all cases we assume that there is irrational and unlawful discirmination by race, what happens when there is rational discrimination by race, and can the disparity be so great that a law prohibiting such discrimination is itself irrational?”

I hear what you are saying, but there is no way any insurance company would dare try anything like that...it would be financial suicide...even if what they did was technically legal, they would be destroyed by all the bad publicity, boycotts and lawsuits. Besides, I don’t think blacks have substantially higher accident rates than whites. The disparity is in violent crime rates only, AFAIK. Funny how the MSM will NEVER talk about it, though. Did you know that a black male has a 1 in 11 chance of being murdered in his lifetime? Did you know that if he is murdered, there is a 99% chance that his killer will be another black male? They are killing themselves! Again, this is not racism, just reality.