What is the Moral Purpose of America's Military?

In a recent Forbes column, historian Paul Johnson argues for “The Moral Logic of Interventionism”. He writes:

But if a great nation such as the U.S. believes in freedom, practices democracy, accepts a Judeo-Christian sense of morality as an ideal, honors human rights, and deplores and denounces all the evils of the totalitarian state--imprisonment without trial, torture, suppression of all freedoms and the slaughter of opponents, their womenfolk and children with artillery, tanks and bombers--then that nation cannot allow a dictator, before the eyes of the world, to violate all the principles of justice and humanity if said nation has the means to prevent it.

Which brings us to the second point. President Obama, in the recesses of his curious worldview, may not like the fact, but America is a great power and is likely to remain the only superpower for some time. It has the aircraft and troops, positioned in bases throughout the world, as well as the immensely powerful fleets of aircraft carriers and landing craft, whose operational reach covers thousands of miles, to undertake almost any kind of mission. These forces are provided at huge expense by the American taxpayer and are staffed by thousands of dedicated young American men and women whose express purpose is to protect civilization from barbarism. That, as they see it and have been taught to see it, is precisely what America stands for; it is the principal moral justification for their nation's immense power and riches.

With due respect to Mr. Johnson, I can not imagine a more destructive foreign policy than one based upon the premise that the “express purpose” of America’s military forces “is to protect civilization from barbarism” because “That … is precisely what America stands for; it is the principal moral justification for their nation's immense power and riches.”

As the Founders understood, the purpose of government is to protect its own citizen’s individual rights. By logical extension, the only moral purpose of a nation’s military is to protect those citizens and their property from foreign military threats. Mr. Johnson’s view, however, is a prescription for a continuation of the endless series of no-win welfare wars such as those that this country has become mired in since Korea. It is welfare statism extended globally.

The moral principle underpinning the “America as world policeman” doctrine, as Mr. Johnson correctly states, is Judeo-Christian ethics, which is rooted in altruism. This ethic must be challenged, because it politically translates into rights-violating governmental impositions of unchosen duty on private citizens. The moral justification for America’s riches, including the military power those riches pay for, is that Americans – each to the extent of his individual productive efforts – earned it. Just as no government should ever be empowered to force any American to pay for the satisfaction of his neighbor’s needs, so no government should send its soldiers into sacrificial humanitarian excursions – or force its citizens to pay for it through taxes. America need not justify its achievements through sacrificial service to the world.

The moral principle that should guide America’s foreign policy is rational national self-interest – which is derived from American citizens’ right to live free and in accordance with their own individual rational self-interest (properly understood: see philosopher Ayn Rand’s ethical teachings). America’s military should be confined to cleanly neutralizing and/or destroying objectively demonstrable physical threats to American lives and property wherever they arise, and leave humanitarian efforts such as Libya to those who would voluntarily pay for and/or voluntarily serve in international military or civilian operations.

Finally, one must ask, what are the “human rights” that Mr. Johnson speaks of? Mr. Johnson calls upon the American government to force its citizens who fund and man its military for the purpose of bringing freedom and “democracy” the world over. In other words, morality dictates that we must bring rights to people the world over at the price of the violation of the rights of Americans. What can justify such a contradiction?

There is a concrete lesson here that serves as further proof of an incontrovertible truth: Altruism, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, is incompatible with ”human” – i.e., individual – rights.

"Supreme" support for Education Tax Credits

The Supreme Court recently issued a ruling upholding education tax credits. In an April 4, 2011, decision on Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, the court rejected a challenge to an Arizona school choice program.

The Objective Standard blog had this to say on the matter:

Observe that the Court’s ruling in this case “declared that the plaintiffs in the case lack standing to bring the challenge in the first instance because the program is funded by private contributions, not government funds.” As Justice Kennedy put it: “Contributions result from the decisions of private taxpayers regarding their own funds,” thus “Objecting taxpayers know that their fellow citizens, not the state, decide to contribute and in fact make the contribution.” A tax credit, Kennedy elaborated, “is not tantamount to a religious tax or tithe.” To say otherwise “assumes that income should be treated as if it were government property even if it has not come into the tax collector’s hands.” This is a feature of tax credit programs—not of school voucher programs—a distinction that all advocates of school choice would do well to recognize and respect.

This is the core issue that I wrote about in my TOS piece, Toward a Free Market in Education:
School Vouchers or Tax Credits?:

Whereas under a voucher program, tuition money goes from taxpayers to the government for disbursal to government-approved schools, under a properly structured tax credit program, the tuition money never goes to the government. Rather, that money is retained by taxpayers who opt into the program for use on education in the private market.

Though the narrowness of the ruling (5-4) is a little disconcerting, Kennedy's point is crystal clear and very powerful. The distinction between government and private ownership is a crucial one, because if the state has an automatic first claim on the peoples' earnings, then every choice we make on how to spend our money is by permission of the government rather than by right.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal had this to say about the court minority's position:

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent, accusing the majority of creating a "novel distinction" between a tax credit and a government appropriation. "Either way, the government has financed the religious activity," she wrote. "And so either way, taxpayers should be able to challenge the subsidy."

But it's Justice Kagan and the statist minority who offer the novel -- and dangerous -- approach.

Tax write-offs are very different than subsidies. If a tax deduction were a "subsidy," then virtually every government entity in America already stands in violation of any ban on "subsidizing" churches and other charities by the simple fact that most such enterprises are in many ways "tax free."

Many Americans write off their home mortgage interest. Is this a "direct subsidy" to those homeowners, meaning the government has a financial interest in their house and therefore has a right to inspect the premises without a warrant?

As the Wall Street Journal put it, "no fewer than four Justices seem to believe that all wealth belongs to the government, and then government allows citizens to keep some of it by declining to tax it".

But ownership and the associated rights to use and disposal is not transferred from private individual to government by the simple enactment of a tax. This is true both factually and logically, as the majority opinion attests. The money must actually change hands. Owing a tax and paying a tax are not the same thing, and if legislators establish a tax credit and you take advantage of the opportunity, you are spending your own, not the government's, money. (Of course, the government has no right or legitimate authority to levy education taxes to begin with, according to our American concept of individual rights. And this case highlights the overarching danger of government financing of activities other than that related to its proper function of protecting individual rights. Direct government financing essentially means using private money as a means of control over those who earned it.)

The narrow split among the High Court's justices demonstrates how close we are to another major expansion of government power. But for now, the road is cleared, at least legally, for the enactment of more education tax credits.

Q & A on Free Market Education - 1

In my article, Toward a Free Market in Education: School Vouchers or Tax Credits, I put forth a parental school choice plan that would initiate a transition from our predominantly government-run school system to a free market. Inevitably, questions would arise. For example, a correspondent on my blog submitted the following (attached to an unrelated post):

“I understand that you are a supporter of free market education, so if you don't mind I would like to ask you several questions with regards to your perspective”.

I’m not sure whether “Michael” is referring to a fully free market or my tax credit program fully implemented. Actually, it’s not entirely clear whether this correspondent is responding to my article at all, but I will assume that Michael has read it and is familiar with my plan. For an in depth look at a fully free market, see Andrew Bernstein, The Educational Bonanza in Privatizing Government Schools (Objective Standard, Winter 2010-11, subscription required).

Under your system, who decides what is taught?
Who decides curriculum across the country?

These two questions are related. We’ll start with an examination of who decides these questions under the status quo. Under our collectivized public school system, central planning government officials decide, such as local school boards or State and Federal Departments of Education. However, their decisions are not made in a vacuum. Andrew Bernstein describes the nature of the process:

[G]overnment schools create irresolvable conflicts regarding curricula, textbooks, and teacher training.

In a mixed economy [a mixture of freedom and government controls], such as America’s, competing interest groups vie to gain control of the [political apparatus], seeking to impose their preferred educational standards on the nation’s youth.

Consider just a few of the conflicts arising from the current American system. Some groups want schools to teach creationism; others want them to teach evolution. Some want schools to teach the “virtues” of socialism and the “crimes” of America; others want them to teach the virtues of freedom and the unprecedented accomplishments of America. Some want schools to teach that America is a Christian country; others want them to teach that America is a secular republic. Some want schools to teach the “look-say” or “whole language” method of reading; others want schools to employ phonics.

Such conflicts follow logically from the coercive methods by which government schools are funded, populated, and operated.

By contrast, private schools entail none of these problems.

Under my transitional plan, those hideous conflicts will continue, but only as it relates to the government-run schools. Any parent employing tax credits under my plan would in effect be opting out, and taking responsibility for what and how his child is taught. Likewise, any educator offering private educational services is left free to decide on textbooks, educational philosophy, hours of operation, teacher credentialling, and tenure policies – any matter relating to his chosen educational mission. In similar fashion to the freer sectors of the economy such as automobiles, food, or computers, the customer – in this case the parent – is free to choose from the variety of educational choices offered by educators competing for his business. Both educators and parents are acting freely and non-coercively. Neither can force their ideas on the other, nor can government bureaucrats or any other third party impose theirs on either. Children receive schooling when parents and educators agree on the terms of a voluntarily contract. Educators will thrive or fail based upon their ability to attract enough parents acting upon their own judgement. Any parent who fails to find a school they deem acceptable is free to use his tax credits to homeschool or hire private tutors.

Who decides curriculum? Someone must, and the choice is clear: either a handful of politically pressured government officials with the power to force their ideas on everyone, or millions of individual parents and educators associating voluntarily and acting on their own judgements in a legally protected atmosphere of contractual freedom. Only the second – the free market – is moral, because force is removed from the educational equation.

How do people of one state, or tax bracket even, ensure their kids get the same quality education as the next state?
It costs more to run some states, and some states have more people and expenditures. Who decides?

These two questions are also related, and really deal with multiple aspects. I’ll break it down.

Who is concerned about getting the “same quality…as the next state” in any product or service they purchase with their money? People typically seek out the best product at the best price they can find that fits their budget. In freer markets, the spread of the best quality products are not – or at least are much less -hindered by artificial state barriers. Products that successfully attract consumers in one state can quickly be offered in others as producers seek to expand sales. Likewise, in a free education market, there are no barriers to interstate education commerce, which means that the best educational institutions can offer their services anywhere. Besides, what if the next state’s schools are inferior? In a fully free national education market, those inferior schools would quickly be replaced with better ones, bringing educational standards up to the best levels available elsewhere. Under my plan, better quality private schools would flourish, and the inferior government schools would shrink as they lose students and funding to the voluntary decisions of more and more parents.

My tax credit plan is most practical at the state level, at least in the short term. Multiple states that adopt tax credits modeled after my plan can form reciprocal agreements so a taxpayer in one state can fund the education of a child of another participating state, if they like. The fact that differing levels of funding or population exist is irrelevant, because under my plan the ETL (Education Tax Liability) and AAC (Average Attendance Cost) governs. For a detailed explanation of how these limits apply, see my article.

As to the issue of different tax brackets, under my plan, there is no tax-subsidized private education. A taxpayer can claim tax credits only up to the limit of his education tax liability. They can only control the money they would otherwise have sent to the government as K-12 taxes – i.e., their own money. Beyond that, they must rely on other income or private philanthropic education scholarships or grants.

Who decides? Ultimately, whether under my plan or a fully free market, those who earned the money in the first place do.

Where does the money come from to start these schools?

Where does the money come from to start any private business? It comes from private investment capital; i.e., savings. Investment capital is not the problem in education. What’s missing is a viable market for private schools. My plan will begin to restore that market, which is currently suppressed by force of the compulsory public school establishment. Empowering taxpayers to take control of their education dollars would unleash an explosion of demand for private educational services and act as a magnet for profit-motivated investors and philanthropists alike.

Understanding Education Tax Credits

Following my comments posted to Bob Braun's NJ Star-Ledger article and published here on 3/26/11, N.J. vouchers would wrongly use taxes for schools with religious affiliations, two correspondents posted rebuttals to my comments. Here are their rebuttals and my posted responses:

Really? February 12, 2011 at 1:17AM
Follow

Maybe I am completely mistaken - but the corporations get to "donate" the scholarship funds and then get a complete tax write off on those funds. If I donate $100 to something and there is a tax law that says I can completely get my money back when I do my taxes....am I really donating $100? No, I am simply playing some crappy political game.

If I donate that $100, and my money goes to some kid for a scholarship to a private school, my private money went to that private school...ok fine. But when I do my taxes, and get to claim that I donated that money...to the private (possibly religious) school, and get all of my $100 back...who just gave me my money back? Oh yeah - the State of NJ. And by the state of NJ, I mean the tax payer of NJ. I'm sorry - it really isn't too hard to put 2 and 2 together here. Just because my money went in one end (to the private school) and came out the other (in the form of a tax refund) , doesn't mean I can't figure out where the money actually came from...the tax payer. What do I care? I just got my $100 back and I get to feel good about myself!

Really? You are falling for this crap?

zemack February 12, 2011 at 3:58PM
Follow

Really?:

Facts aren't "crap". Who is "the tax payer"? It's you. You earned the $100. You spent it. At tax time, you're not getting it "back". You're simply not sending it to the government. No other taxpayer is involved. In the case of education tax credits, money spent on education doesn't change. What changes is who decides how it is spent. In you're example, you - the one who earned the hundred bucks to begin with - decides, rather than some government bureaucrat.

What complicates the issue is that, even with tax credits, compulsory taxation still underpins the system. This creates the illusion that the state owns your money, and that any reduction in your tax burden is a gift from the state, paid for out of other people's taxes. But, as long as your money goes toward the intended purpose - in this case education - you are not getting anything from the state or other taxpayers. You are simply gaining greater freedom to act upon your own judgement, with your own money - an unalienable individual right that has too long been neglected.

seestraight February 11, 2011 at 8:09PM
Follow

Without public education the country becomes like some third world country. Most people go through public education. Better to have millions ignorant than half-decently educated? I think not.--Not for us allYou want to eliminate it? or only pay for it if they teach what you personally think they should? What should we do poll every taxpayer and if they dont like this or that, they dont have to pay? Do that every year? Every course? Every semester? Every teacher? Get real. We need public education to compete with the world and to have our country-- the whole country do well. 25 educated kids and 100,000 ignorant? No skills? Yea-- that house will stand, but not for long.

zemack February 12, 2011 at 4:02PM
Follow

Seestraight:

"What should we do poll every taxpayer and if they dont like this or that, they dont have to pay? Do that every year? Every course? Every semester? Every teacher?"

Yes, except that there would be no need for a poll. In a free market, everyone would be free to act upon their own individual judgement in regard to education. Parents and educators would be free to contract voluntarily with each other - the parents in pursuit of the best education that meets the needs of their own children and their own wallets, and educators competing for their business based upon educational philosophy, price, and overall quality.

I agree, without education "the country becomes like some third world country". What we shouldn't have is government-run schools. But your basic premise that without compulsory "public education" only 25 out of every 100,000 kids would be educated implies that almost no parent values education. But, if so few in the country valued education, then no school system would work, whether government-run or private. Your argument is self-refuting and absurd on its face.

Education is a supreme value. Almost everyone agrees. That's why we need to get government out of the business of financing and running the schools.

On Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day, Remember the Injustice of the Military Draft

The United States senate has voted to make March 30th Welcome Home Vietnam Veterans Day. On March 30th, 1973, the last remaining American troops withdrew from Vietnam.

The Vietnam era was a horrendous time for America. The whole debacle, from the false pretenses that initiated our military role, to the no-win war strategy of our civilian leadership, to the abandonment of the South Vietnamese people to the communist butchers of the North, was a travesty. It was a war that ended in humiliating defeat for the mightiest military in world history – at the hands of a pipsqueak tyranny that could have and should have been quickly crushed with little loss of American blood and treasure.

Also appalling was the treatment accorded to our combat soldiers upon returning home. Carolyn Abell documents the injustice over at Gulf1. She writes:

"Largely due to intentional misreporting by anti-war press members, a number of myths and falsehoods were generated and have continued to be perpetuated about this war and the men who fought it."

Among the lies and myths are:

"The few isolated atrocities committed by American servicemen were blown out of proportion, causing the general public to wonder if they had evolved into savage and inhumane beasts reminiscent of the degenerate boys in “Lord of the Flies.” The truth is that while we had a few incidents, the North Vietnamese routinely committed such atrocities against our side—a fact that seldom got reported."

Ms. Abell debunks the commonly held beliefs that drug abuse was rampant among the troops and that the war was fought disproportionately by the poor, uneducated, and blacks. She reports that “A 97 percent rate of honorable discharges among Vietnam veterans should quell any myths that they were largely lawless heathens”.

One of the worst stains on the period (and on 20th Century America) was the existence of the military draft. Unfortunately, Ms. Abell apparently doesn’t see it that way. Instead, she simply denigrates a whole swath of the population as “draft dodgers and cowards”. This is common among those seeking to restore the well-deserved honor of those who served in Vietnam. Your nation needed you, the thinking goes, and you refused to answer the call of duty. Therefor, you must be condemned.

I’ve left the following comments which, for reasons best known to the website, were removed within a day:

I fully support the Senate’s move to give Vietnam veterans the official national recognition they deserve. Exposing the lies and myths surrounding American servicemen perpetrated by New Left nihilists and others, documented here by Ms. Abell, is long overdue.

I must, however, take issue with Ms. Abell’s implicit designation of all draft dodgers and those who did not serve as “cowards”. Those who today “claim credit for military service they never gave” justly deserve condemnation. But many “draft dodgers” were simply acting in accordance with their moral convictions, a basic human right.

The term “draft dodger” was created by that sinister, un-American institution of the time, the military draft. Draft dodger conjures up images of young men ordered to report into service but who illegally evaded it. But remember that there were many, many more legal draft “dodgers”, myself included, who avoided service first through deferments and then through luck because of that ridiculous birthdate lottery system of picking draftees, or who simply claimed “conscientious objector” status based upon religious or moral beliefs. It's been reported that 60% of draft-age men between 1964 and 1973 – some 15+ million - escaped the draft in this manner. Are they all to be branded as “cowards”?

America was founded on the principle that each individual owns his own life. According to the Declaration of Independence, which is the philosophical blueprint for this country, each person has the unalienable right to exercise his liberty to pursue his own goals, welfare, and happiness. America is the first and only country that explicitly endorses a non-sacrificial way of life.

The draft runs completely contrary to these American ideals. The draft forces some people into involuntary servitude to “the nation” in defiance of the concept that “we the people” – each and every individual one of us – are the nation. Ending the draft was Richard Nixon’s greatest tribute to Vietnam veterans, many if not most of whom were forced into involuntary servitude – directly or indirectly – to fight a war that served no national purpose or interest. Forced sacrifice was and always is un-American. The Vietnam era draft dodgers, avoiders, or evaders, whatever their motivations or means, were Americans who should not have been put in the position of having to either break the law or use the law in order to exercise their unalienable right to say no to military service. The right to simply say no is inherent in the American ideals grounded in individual rights, the protection of which is what America’s military is supposed to be engaged in.

Under the rights-respecting volunteer armed forces we have had since, American servicepersons elect to take on the job the rest of us pay them to do through our taxes – defend ALL of our rights. Those Americans who choose to serve do so to defend the ideals that they presumably believe in and that America stands for. They are voluntarily fighting for their belief in America’s non-sacrificial way of life enshrined in the Declaration, because those are the only conditions they presumably wish to live under. Otherwise, why did they volunteer? Yes, it is “noble and honorable” to serve in the American armed forces, because those who do are defending the supreme nobility and honorability of every individual’s unalienable right to his own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

I certainly appreciate Carolyn Abell’s vigorous defense of our Vietnam veterans. It’s time to set the record straight. But, to complete the record, we must recognize the fundamentally corrupting role that conscription had on the Vietnam era and our historical perception of it. By all means, let’s recognize and thank them every March 30th. Having been forced to fight in a war they were forbidden to win only to be treated like villains by many Americans is unforgivable. But let’s not denigrate non-vets in the process.

Separation of Church (or Education) and State

Last month, I dealt with one aspect of Bob Braun's NJ Star-ledger article N.J. vouchers would wrongly use taxes for schools with religious affiliations - voluntarism vs. force. Today, I return to Mr. Braun's piece to deal with another fundamental point he raises; the separation of church and state.

Braun is a staunch defender of the government-run public school establishment. Likewise, he unequivocally opposes parental school choice based upon any method that diverts the government's education tax dollars - probably any tax dollars - for that purpose. In this piece, he leans heavily upon the doctrine of separation of church and state to make his case. He writes:

It is just plain wrong to use taxes to promote a religious message.

While I might endorse the Catholic message, not everyone does — not even all Catholics. I’ve heard Catholic priests use pulpits to urge the defeat of marriage equality. I’ve heard them use pulpits to condemn abortion and birth control. Must all people, through their taxes, pay to endorse these messages — even if these beliefs offend the beliefs of others?

Wasn’t that issue settled by the First Amendment — and the specific ban on tax money going to religious ministries in the New Jersey Constitution?

I am a Catholic.

But no Catholic — neither I nor Chris Christie — has the right to expect Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers to support our causes, convey our messages, involuntarily through their tax dollars.

I agree with the principle Braun is espousing here. That principle - that no one should be forced to financially support ideas that they may not agree with - is an absolute. There's a funny thing about principles, though: they are "universal", meaning that their abstract message can be applied to an unlimited number of specific, concrete issues - past, present, or future. When one espouses a principle, he in effect opens up his entire repertoire of issue positions to scrutiny.

I've left the following commentary.

zemack February 11, 2011 at 6:55PM
Follow

Bob Braun’s argument is easily refuted by the facts. A tax credit represents taxes not being collected. The corporations funding the Opportunity Scholarship Act are contributing their own money. None of it goes to the state, and the state is issuing no checks to religious schools or to the Opportunity Scholarship Board that dispenses the funds.

These are the facts. There is no violation of the separation of church and state. Money belongs first to those who earn it. The government has no inherent claim on that money. How in the world do taxes not collected translate into tax-funded religion, or tax-funded anything? If that is the case, then every private dollar we spend is tax-funded something or other. The idea is absurd.

Having said that, Braun does a good job defending separation of religion and state:

“It is just plain wrong to use taxes to promote a religious message.

“While I might endorse the Catholic message, not everyone does — not even all Catholics. I’ve heard Catholic priests use pulpits to urge the defeat of marriage equality. I’ve heard them use pulpits to condemn abortion and birth control. Must all people, through their taxes, pay to endorse these messages — even if these beliefs offend the beliefs of others?

“Wasn’t that issue settled by the First Amendment — and the specific ban on tax money going to religious ministries in the New Jersey Constitution?”

I concur. So, why should I be forced to support, through my taxes, educational ideas that I may or may not agree with, or that “offend” me? I abhor the collectivist theories of John Dewey, which dominates modern progressive education. I believe in the individualist educational and epistemological philosophies of Maria Montessori and Ayn Rand. Why should I be forced to pay for Dewey? And why should I be forced to pay for the education of other people’s children, any more than be forced to pay for the church religious training of those same children?

Braun writes:

“But no Catholic — neither I nor Chris Christie — has the right to expect Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and non-believers to support our causes, convey our messages, involuntarily through their tax dollars.”

James Madison’s 1785 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments argued forcefully against tax-supported religion, and won the day. The result was a thriving and free religious sector, including for non-believers. The same arguments can be made against tax-supported education, which would lead to a thriving and free educational marketplace. [For an indepth assessment on this point, see Dr. C. Bradley Thompson's lecture, The Case for Abolishing America’s Government Schools
]

Braun argues persuasively for the separation of church and state. In doing so, he inadvertently makes the case for the separation of education and state. Though flawed in significant areas, the Opportunity Scholarship Act is a small but meaningful step in that direction – the right direction. It should pass. [The flaws in the Opportunity Scholarship Act are too serious to warrant my unequivocal support - namely, the state-approved intermediary called the Opportunity Scholarship Board, which ultimately gives politicians the power to choose, and exclude, participating schools. My position is elaborated on in my Objective Standard article.]

In a future post, I'll deal with a couple of correspondents who rebutted this posting.

Cohen: Hate-Crime Laws are "Totalitarian Nonsense"

Almost as bad as hate crimes themselves is the designation. It is a little piece of totalitarian nonsense, a way for prosecutors to punish miscreants for their thoughts or speech, both of which used to be protected by the Constitution (I am an originalist in this regard). Richard Cohen, writing in the Washington Post.

I've written on this subject before. It is a critical First Amendment issue. Cohen is widely considered to be a liberal, so this piece demonstrates that the "hate crime" issue transcends the Left-Right ideological divide (In the previous piece I referenced a voice from the Right - George F. Will.) Because of what I consider to be the profound importance of this issue, it is well to elaborate on it further. First of all, the whole concept is absurd. The concept “hate crime” logically implies some other types of crime. What exactly are non-bigotry motivated crimes like rape, serial murder, armed robbery, or Ponzi theft, - expressions of love? The whole concept “hate crime” is a laughable absurdity, except it is incredibly dangerous. Hate crime laws are taken straight out of the collectivist playbook – they represent punishment for hatred for a particular group (gays, blacks, immigrants), not the individual victim. A “hate” criminal is tried not just for his actions against his particular victim, but for his alleged animosity towards the group identification of his victim. As Cohen points out, the principle involved here is a license for prosecutorial aggression. But the longer-term danger is much graver. As of now, punishment for one’s motivating ideas are tied to an actual crime. A hate crime conviction results in punishment added to that related to the action – for the perpetrator’s thoughts. However, it is inevitable that thought will one day be severed from the action completely. Why not, some future entrepreneurial prosecutor might ask, punish the thought before it turns into an actual crime? Why not, indeed, some “activist” future judge might concur. Once any thought becomes criminalized, then all thoughts – i.e., ideas – cease to be an unalienable right. They then become the property of, and exist only by permission of, the state. Since thought is the precursor to individual human action, it logically follows that action may be taken only by permission of the state, since one’s actions are to be judged – at least in part - by the ideas that motivate them. The broad sweep of the term “hate crime” is chilling. For example, free market opponents of the welfare state are routinely demonized as enemies of the “weak”, and harbor a callous disregard for “the poor, the elderly, the sick, and the children”, or whoever fits the latest definition of the “needy”. What’s to stop some future statist administration from arresting pro-capitalist activists and charging them with a hate crime against some needy group? Nothing except time. No modern politician can get away with that sort of thing today, but principles drive human events and, coupled with precedents, drive legal evolution. Bigotry, of course, is cruel and evil. Opposing hate crime law in no way should be taken as a sanction for it. Rather, defending the individual’s right to his own ideas, however wrong-headed, is a defense of every other person’s right to theirs. To do less is to invite tyranny, because it is just through such sores on society that the virus of statism infects the body of a free society. The principles and precedents underpinning hate crime legislation empowers government to criminalize any ideas it deems unacceptable. And coercive power that extends beyond that which is legitimately required to carry out its sole duty to protect individual rights, once accrued to government, will be exercised sooner or later, unless repealed. The power of political censorship is embedded in hate-crime legislation. It is impossible to say how long it will remain dormant, but it won’t forever. Cohen is perfectly accurate in ascribing the term “totalitarian” to hate crime legislation. Also see George F. Will: Hate Crime Laws.

Hate-crime laws turn thoughts into crimes -- By Richard Cohen