I agree that it was politically unwise for Rand to appear on Maddow's show. He had to know that his opposition to civil rights and disability rights based on the absolute right of a property holder would be the main item on her agenda.
But Rand Paul is an ideologue. He actually does believe that property rights trump everything, and believes that explaining this to the electorate is a totally logical argument. It is a bit like the Ayatollah's rejection of the Baha'i religion: Allah opposes Baha'i, they are British agents, they are the work of Satan and all moral people must oppose them: to not do so is an anathema to Allah.
Paul says that property rights are sacred, and may not be violated to dictate the rights of the minorities or the disabled. Even though a business owner COULD set up his business as a private membership club, he should not have to do so. He believes that logic dictates that discrimination is a bad business plan, and logic will dictate that any sane businessman will choose not to discriminate. Logic, therefore, trumps property rights, just as property rights trump civil rights.
In Rand Paul's world, all offices would have a ground floor so that no proprietor would have to build an expensive elevator for disabled employees. But of course, this is silly, because the business owner will simply not hire a disabled employee as a rule, since that avoids all such problems: they can rent the cheaper office on the second or third floor and not have to provide the elevator, either.
Good governance depends on compromise. The US government already suffers from excess polarization. The whole "Party of NO" strategy is based on a refusal to compromise. This is particularly true of the Senate, where one stubborn jackass can block everything. This Dr. Paul should stick to medicine.
