You're perfectly underscoring my Ron Paul thesis. He attempts to have every issue in two or more ways.
He is saying we need to overturn the idea of flag burning as freedom of speech - social conservative.
He is saying we need to allow states to manage this issue - constitutional conservative.
He is saying that it is protected by the First amendment and property rights - libertarian.
There, in three paragraphs, he said three different things and appealed to all three of his bases.
So, how can it be protected by the First Amendment AND be a subject of state banning at the same time?
How can it be NOT freedom of speech AND freedom of speech at the same time?
Remember that he submitted an amendment that allowed for states to ban flag burning, in contradiction to the freedom of speech and, really, the 4th and 9th amendments. You can't be a pure libertarian and believe that the government should be able to ban you from damaging your own property!
Perahps he moved on this subject when Murray Rothbard came out with his paper against flag burning laws. I don't remember what year that was.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
"Annoyance is step one of thinking"
"We're all in the same boat, it doesn't matter if you like me"
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: