the rand paul civil rights thing is kind of amazing. people don't really comprehend libertarianism; so embroiled are they in contradictory ideologies one way or the other that a consistent ideology appears rife with contradictions. (on the other hand, whether it would be better to be governed by a set of consistent principles, rather than a hodgepodge of ad hoc prejudices, is an interesting question.)

on the other hand, this has been a huge and real problem. barry goldwater opposed the civil rights act, on his own account on constitutional and personal freedom grounds. but was it not also a matter of political positioning? the deep south has been republican ever since.

in general, the civil rights movement is, if you ask me, the most serious american-historical challenge to an anti-state type vision. it is a case in which, at least apparently, a blatant systemic transformation toward justice was made under the auspices of the state. much of it was presented as a petition to the state. thisis one reason you don't see a lot of black folks at libertarian conventions or tea party rallies. the answer to the petition came in terms of brown v board, using the national guard to desegregate schools, and so on. and indeed, the transformations of the nation's conscience was in part brought about by a transformation of the law.

but of course not only by a transformation of the law, and it's possible that much of the change would have occurred with the transformation of conscience broght about king and so many others. at any rate, that a store owner should be permitted to exclude black customers seems like an exercise of individual freedom. it is of course also a node or exchange of the systemic oppression.

now the actual history of the state in relation to race for the most part is a nice nightmare. but as in many cases, it's not only a nightmare, and the argument actually is hard on the ground in this case.

[just to strap the repulsive jacob heilbrunn for a second: it is amazing that rand paul is talking about william lloyd garrison, much less saying that he's one of his favorite american historical figures: a beautiful, shocking declaration. one of the greatest american abolitionists, peace activists, feminists: also a christian anti-statist. the stuff about guns is perfectly comprehensible as an analogy to the civil rights case, though of course questionable: so say that in an interpretation of the second amendment, the federal government said that you as a business-owner could not restrict your customers from entering your store with guns? the heilbrunn thing is just stupid abuse, but paul is actually an intellectual who is making sense.]