by Eric Dondero

Some libertarians and other free market advocates are taking the side that the site at Ground Zero of the proposed Mega-Mosque is private property, and the Muslims have every right to build there.

If this was truly private property, I'd agree that they have every right to build their Mega-Mosque, even as extremely offensive as the proposed project may be. It's no different from a porn shop, after all. Though, you could easily argue that pornography is far less offensive than a shrine to Muslim Terrorists.

However, there are some serious questions as to whether this plot of land is indeed private property. Con-edison, which is heavily subsidized by the New York state government, owns half the property.

Even putting that aside, you have to ask, should a war memorial be considered "private property"? Ground Zero is no different from Gettysburg, Pearl Harbor, or Arlington Cemetary. It was the site of the very worst attack on the United States in our history. To be consistent, one would also have to advocate privatization of the Pearl Harbor memorial. It's become a bit cliche', but it's a valid argument. Would we allow the Japanese to set up a memorial to Kamakaze pilots at Pearl Harbor? Should we allow the KKK to set up a Welcome Center and Museum at Gettysburg? The American Nazi Party a Museum honoring Hitler at Arlington Cemetary or at the U.S. cemetary plot on Normandy Beach in France?

As principled a libertarian as I am, I don't advocate privatizing every single monument, park, museum, and symbol of the United States of America. Most especially, Military-related sites should remain public property.

Photo of Normandy burial ground, which the French have designated U.S sacred and sovereign territory.