His “controversial” view shouldn’t really be controversial at all. It’s a radical libertarian inspired view that is either ignored by the corporate media or, inversely, made mainstream. Saying that racial discrimination should be allowed among private institutions may seem like an outright racist view, indeed, but it falls right in line with the theory of limited government in business and economic affairs. Of course, such “limited government” should be in place to cover racial discrimination, which is a clear violation of human rights. Rand covered his ass by reversing his beliefs on the matter and saying that he supports the 1964 Civil Rights Act. I don’t really see that as much of a compromise to the libertarian outlook; rather, it’s a more pragmatic stance on a serious subject.
Kids Like You & Me (KLYAM) 
This is an example of how entities spawned by other entities take lives of their own and become more powerful than the entities that spawned them. Businesses were established under the law, corporations received charters under the law, they spawn from government. Now, as they have existed for a long time it’s now acceptable to claim that they are completely independent from government and in fact are more powerful than government, and are laws onto themselves. What is sovereignty if someone can own territory off-limits to the law? What is democracy is it applies almost nowhere, particularly as there’s a mania for privatising the commons, and if it’s private it’s under the exclusive dictatorship of the owner, the so-called liberatarians and conservatives say, and as a result there’s almost no commons left. If democracy only applies to the commons and there’s no commons left then the country really is parcelled out to competing tyrants and those unfortunate enough to be stuck on their territory become their subjects, or, at worse, their slaves.
Rand Paul, who clearly is named after a psychopath, should understand that his logic can extend to allowing slavery. Private property is paramount, he says. That means that on private property, the owner is king and if people on his land become his slaves, that’s all right. If he bought those slaves, they are his private property, and freeing those slaves is theft. These so-called libertarians advocate measures that make for far less freedom for the vast majority of people.
Either way I don’t know why he would publicly say such a thing and expect to be elected, whether he’s racist deep down or not. It will greatly damage his campaign and distract people from his other objectives, which may be more humane and useful. Even the most right wing, real racist motherfuckers wouldn’t make such a statement because they know it’s social suicide. Naturally, this concern is bigger than Rand Paul’s issue.
This case is a very useful example, showing that fanatical pro-private property populist politics that has been recently disseminated, in part to promote deflationism and liquidationism and a permanently lower standard of living and a rollback of the liberating rise in economic security that happened after World War II, has clear evil and socially unacceptable results.
This shows that under such a regime, people who visit a town could find every door shut in their face because of their racial background, and they thus have less freedom. Fanatic pro-private property politics benefit the tiny minority that own most of the country the most and everyone else is reduced to begging those lords for favours at any low price.
The world must know – libertarianism brings freedom of the few to enslave the many.
Some libertarians and anarchists too for that matter say that most people don’t really want to be free. That is true. That means that if the government isn’t making decisions for people, unelected private tyrants will do so.
Anarchists recognise that promoting anarchy can only be done through generations of work in changing people’s mindsets. Libertarianism is not the answer.
The first step in promoting anarchy is to make people stop worshipping people of higher classes. Ayn Rand for one promoted such worship so she’s no inspiration for anarchy. Anarchy is about ending hierarchy and accepting that everyone is as good as everyone else in a general way. The next step is for bodies of power to be converted from an authoritarian or totalitarian setup to a cooperative one, that people with different roles help fulfil common goals. These things are far more important than getting rid of the government. The government of course can be less involved in people’s private personal lives and not lock people up for smoking pot and so on, and the police should cease their commando raids and so forth. People in the end would have to care about taking more charge of things. The reason why cranks like Rand Paul are getting traction in the midst of 30 years of the rollback of the middle class is that people fought for these changes and then became complacent as the plutocracy struck back.
I like the idea of anarchistic cooperatives. If we end corporate person-hood that’d be a start. I think, as Noam Chomsky said, that we should not be so quick to criticize Tea Party “cranks” like Paul, etc. Corporations and state capitalism spawn from government. Let’s eliminate the government.