He’s quite an interesting host if he wasn’t so wrong. But you immediately notice the fallacies. Zero-sum fallacy, objective price fallacy… Typical folklore economics. He says rich people are “wasting money”, as if lack of money was the reason there’s scarcity. If only Peter Thiel wasn’t allowed to have so much money, then more goods for poor kids would be available! And then he doesn’t seem to consider effects of spontaneous order at all; how could blacks possibly find restaurants that serve them if the government didn’t force everyone to accept them as customers? Hmmm… Someone would have to, like, be willing to exchange their money for services? I mean, seriously, does he think that blacks would somehow be excluded from the civil economy? Everyone would have to refuse to serve them, at a staggering cost to them and their business. Reminds me of the people who think that food would be poisonous without government regulation. Apparently we would all just happily buy that poisoned food every day and no businessman would get the idea to get rich by offering safe food. You have to wonder how humanity made it into the computer age with the broad public that unaware of how simple monetary allocation mechanisms work.
The funny thing is that I can see where he comes from. Libertarianism, at least in the form it is advocated by most supporters today, is rather unpolished and must seem arbitrary and inconsistent. That’s, I think, a symptom of it’s near extinction in the Progressive era and recent revival, the arguments are just being formulated and most supporters didn’t have the time to memorize all the right responses yet. One shouldn’t confuse lack of articulateness with ideological inconsistency. The entire reason there is statist mythology is that it is easy to articulate and understand. Accurate explanations are usually not as simplistic and plausible as the false ones.