After extensive reading and debate, I've found that the opponents of hate crime laws are mainly bigots who spread lies about these laws being fundamentally different than other laws.

Most libertarians generally do not support the concept of "hate crime legislation." and i don't think the libertarian movement is comprised of mainly bigots. I looked over the comments at SC, I didn't see any "bigoted" arguments. I think that's being a bit too hyperbolic.

Blazak's appeal to "9-11" doesn't hold water. 9-11 was a 4th generational military strike against a US civilian population carried out by a foreign group as retaliation for what it viewed(whether rightly or wrongly) as an unjustified US Military occupation and acts of war in the Middle east. That's not the same thing as discussing a cross being burned on someone's lawn, or whether someone is targeted for physical violence because of their sexual orientation.

When discussing "hate crimes legislation" i don't think the salient issue is "creating" "a protected class" of citizens, but rather the issue of punishment vis a vis "motive." if you accept Blazak's thesis of "motive-based punishment," then the Agorist, for example, selling weed could be prosecuted far more harshly than a simple dealer. What if they simply posted somewhere that "hey, I like that Agorism idea?" The counter-argument that i'm committing the logical fallacy of "the slippery slop" doesn't hold water, either. I posted recently about the incarceration of Tommy Chong. It was largely a "thought crime," because the Bush Admin went after him because of his movies(speech). After his arrest, Bush crowed about Chong's arrest, with appeals to, you guesssed it, 9-11, claiming that, in essence, selling bongs was a contributory "act of terror."

The fact is, we are all criminals. Advocating "motive-based" punishment as we slip further into the grips of the national security State is throwing grease on the slope. The real statistical threat of terrorism is from the government. The real "protected class' is "law enforcement."

Blazak's appeal to "9-11" doesn't hold water. 9-11 was a 4th generational military strike against a US civilian population carried out by a foreign group as retaliation for what it viewed(whether rightly or wrongly) as an unjustified US Military occupation and acts of war in the Middle east.

Our occupation didn't help, but they would be a threat to us even if we didn't have a single dollar or troop outside the U.S. They readily define their motivation as Islam, and given what the Koran says it's not surprising. 9/11 was a hate crime against Americans and Western culture just as much as the despicable actions Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson did to Matthew Shepard for his sexual orientation.

In the Koran:

"fight and slay the Pagans wherever you find them" (Surah 9:5)

"Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise." (Surah 4:56)

"But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads, Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted" (Surah 22:19)

"And as for the unjust - they are the fuel of hell." (Jinn 72:15)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting all Muslim people believe in this, but it's only because they know when to depart from the Koran. Same is true with many Christians and knowing when to part from the Bible.

As for motives, it's nothing to do with motive. It is everything to do with their INTENT not only to hurt those victims directly, but to terrorize and threaten everyone else who meets that characteristic.

Put another way, I think attempted murder should be punished more severely than manslaughter, even though only the latter ends up with a dead body, because of the intent.

The Silent Consensus

but you more or less made my point.

cherry picking islamic scripture to make a case for motive-based hate crimes isn't making the case; western common, criminal law makes a distinction between motive and intent when it comes to crime and punishment; intent pertains to deliberation in terms of committing a specific criminal act(that is, is the accused deliberately and knowingly committing the specific crime); motive is actually neither a sufficient nor necessary for a conviction; that is, why someone committed the act. Motive is often used to establish intent, but it's not the basis for either establishing guilt or determining the punishment.

As for motives, it's nothing to do with motive...

A bit of linguistical circular reasoning, frankly. Intent has to do with deliberately violating a "specific crime," therefore things like "attempted murder," manslaughter, and degrees of homicide have their own separate criminal statutes. Legal concepts like "terrorizing and threatening everyone else," in terms of intent in breaking a specific law, are just a bit ephemeral.

Frankly, I view "Hate Crimes" more or less in the same light as "conspiracy laws." The concept of "criminal conspiracy," where even intent doesn't have to be proved to result in criminal conviction, has by itself undermined the rationality of "western law." "Hate Crimes" is just piling on. I just facepalm at those who cherry pick the Koran to make the case for an existential threat to the "reason" of "western law." The only "reason' I can see is that the logical extension of "western law" in the context of the State, results in everyone being a criminal. The existential threat of "sharia law" to 'western values" can take it's place at the back of line. One of the things that amuses me is the not so covert type of implied bigotry in sounding the "threat' of the Koran. People aren't stupid. These "islamic fundamentalists" see the abject hypocrisy in our own "legal system," specifically the arbitrary powers given to those in the legal ruling class, and are not particularly enamored with the coerced imposition of modern, western progressive nonproductive rent-extracting corporate governments on them. From their perspective, I'm not surprised that "rational western justice" is not a compelling case. And it's no big surprise that we have seen a populist blowback in the middle east in terms of fundamentalism. The justice of a "pink police state" probably is a hard sell to the islamic religious mind.

cherry picking, I was simply demonstrating that their main reason is Islam, not because we are there.

Hate crimes have more than one target. A violent crime has one target, the victim. A hate crime has the victim, and everyone who shares that characteristic because of the symbolic threat. I'd rather they be called threat crimes, as it's not a matter of what's in their head, it's a matter of what they intend to say with the crime.

The Silent Consensus

Then why don't the ideological leaders of jihadi terrorism say that?

I'm not saying that everything would suddenly be just peachy if intervention ended, but what justification would remain that'd convince the populations they live among? Much of the issue is due to being able to whip up fear & hatred towards a foreign entity as misdirection from internal problems.

As I said, our actions didn't help, but they are a red herring. It reminds me of when people claim the Israeli settlements are the biggest hinder to peace. I'm against the Israeli settlements, they don't help, they shouldn't be there, but they are a red herring. Israel was attacked by militant Islam from the year that they were founded. And, the Sinai Settlement wasn't a hinder to peace with Egypt. After the peace agreement the settlement was immediately uprooted. If Israel was the size of a postage stamp, they'd still have a problem.

Same in this case, their motivation is Islamic fundamentalism, and they cite our actions as a red herring, to try to gain legitimacy with those who don't swallow the Koran. What would their justification be with the populations? I don't know, they'd think of something.

The fact is they have deliberately targeted innocent civilians many times (just to name a few: LAX, 9/11, Empire State Building, WTC 1993, USS Cole, Marine Barracks, many embassy bombings, the Iran Hostage Crisis) seeking to kill as many people as possible, and even though I was not directly harmed by their actions, I was a target by my being an American.

The Silent Consensus

My problem with libertarian opposition to hate crimes legislation is that it makes a strong case against new hate crimes laws but fails to include in its attacks existing motive-based criminal legislation as well. It seems to me that even the historical common law tradition allowed for different levels of punishment based on motive or intent. Manslaughter versus murder, for example. So either we need to come up with a better reason why to draw the line in the sand at hate crimes, or a greater push to repeal existing laws that assign punishment based on motive.

In reality, i think the libertarian position should be to emphasize restitution civil law over criminal law to begin with, with the basic position being that criminal law itself has proven to be inimical to libertarian justice. A radical position, no doubt, but I don't see much value in obsessing over "Hate crimes" when, in fact, i think a much more compelling case can be made that "criminal conspiracy laws" have already eroded much of whatever liberal foundation there is to criminal "common law." Once again, a libertarian Class based critique. No doubt, radical. Not likely to be particularly popular among anyone at this point, I concede...

The point I was trying to make is that most of the opponents of hate crimes legislation (Members of Congress, Beltway types, etc.) are failing to explain why hate crimes legislation is radically different from existing motive-based crimes, except for protecting people of different race, religion, and sexual orientation. In failing to present a fundamental critique of motive-based crimes, I do think they leave themselves open to charges of bigotry, racism, prejudice, etc.

But if you start from a broader criticism that also brings into question other types of crimes, I think you insulate yourself from such attacks.

Thanks for explaining it more clearly than I did.

In direct response to Kaligula's point:

Most libertarians generally do not support the concept of "hate crime legislation." and i don't think the libertarian movement is comprised of mainly bigots. I looked over the comments at SC, I didn't see any "bigoted" arguments. I think that's being a bit too hyperbolic.

 An informed libertarian criticism of hate crime laws has to recognize that the libertarian position is a radical one, and much of the American legal code has the same problems as the hate crime laws do. Adding "sexual orientation" to the list of hate crimes is a trivial reform to the legal system in order to keep it consistent with recent changes in our views about what sort of behavior warrants the threat of violence.

There is something conspicuous about focused attempts to exclude sexual orientation from the list of hate crimes, which is what raises suspicion that most opponents (who are not at all libertarian) are actually bigots. True, they rarely resort to bigoted arguments--instead they resort to to the lie that these laws are dangerously radical, and label their advocates (i.e. prominent gay rights groups) as dangerous radicals.  The lies that they spread (illustrated in the SC discussion) are so concisely focused on these "gay agenda" issues that the only good explanation I can come up with for  their behavior is that they are primarily concerned with keeping gays marginalized in our society. Another possibility is that they are partisan trolls, but that doesn't explain why the party has taken this position in the first place (it isn't because the Republican party is libertarian).

It at least forces the discussion to address issues that the traditional criticism of hate crimes legislation ignores. For example, if a focus on common law objections misses the point, you have to concede that libertarianism defines an approach to the law separate from the common law. Which is not something that I feel most libertarians, at least from the likes of Cato, want to admit. This may get into broader questions about the inadequacy of common law and torts, like the recent discussion on pollution.

Is the libertarian position only restitution and no concern for intent or motive? That's something I'd like to see more discussion on.

of hate crime laws, is to prevent actions that intimidate against groups, such as Jews, African Americans or gays, etc.

Calling someone a Jew is not a crime. Breaking the storefront glass of Jewish business owner is a violent act, but worse if the intention is intimidation of the group, the message being if you are Jewish, get your business out of my neighborhood.

That is much different than a single burglar breaking the glass of the storefront, to take the money out of the cash register to pay overdue rent or buy drugs.

The sentence enhancement intends to prevent the spread of populist hatred against a group, that if unchecked can lead to mass graves like we saw in Germany, or the hanging trees of the South.

You have the freedom to have all the wicked thoughts you like, just as long as you don't take the next step and engage in violence.