Hmm while I can totally understand what he's saying to some extent, it does reek of "I'm a billionaire and here are the kinds of fantasies I focus on"
"Since 1920, the vast increase in welfare beneficiaries and the extension of the franchise to women — two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians"
seem to be pretty good indicators that the article is completely terrible.
If there's anything that makes the article terrible--which I don't think it is, it's well-argued for the point it's making--it's the blind assumption underlying it that less government is always better. I think that's a silly principle to argue for, but then I haven't read anything else he's written; for all I know he's made efforts to defend it in the past, so I can't assume he considers it a matter of faith.
Take a look at the bitcoin community. It is full of libertarians trying to invent or grow solutions to political problem, mainly monetary problems.
It's not entirely the domain of the libertarian rich.