Ron Paul has stepped into the continuing saga of the “ground zero mosque” with what seems to me to be a reasonable statement, albeit one that will not earn him too many friends on the Right.
Congressman Paul reduces things to their essentials:
The debate should have provided the conservative defenders of property rights with a perfect example of how the right to own property also protects the 1st Amendment rights of assembly and religion by supporting the building of the mosque.
The statement includes a direct shot at the Right and the Left
Conservatives are once again, unfortunately, failing to defend private property rights, a policy we claim to cherish. In addition conservatives missed a chance to challenge the hypocrisy of the left which now claims they defend property rights of Muslims, yet rarely if ever, the property rights of American private businesses.
Defending the controversial use of property should be no more difficult than defending the 1st Amendment principle of defending controversial speech. But many conservatives and liberals do not want to diminish the hatred for Islam–the driving emotion that keeps us in the wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.
Paul has little patience for the “sunshine patriots on both the right and the left who are all for freedom, as long as there’s no controversy and nobody is offended. The list of “sunshine patriots” now includes one Rand Paul, who hopes to become the Senator from Kentucky.
Is Ron Paul correct on this issue? From a libertarian perspective, it would appear that one could reach no other conclusion. Or am I missing something?