I like how Thiel tells on himself by clarifying that his definition of "freedom" strictly refers to freedom only for himself alone.

If you're interested in maximizing freedom, you inevitably face the problem of what to do when two freedoms contradict. How do you handle the fact that "the right to swing your fist as you please" and "the right to not get punched in the nose" are both legitimate freedoms?

There are two ways to resolve the conflict:

1. You identify classes of people where one person's freedom is subservient to another person's freedom. This is what Thiel and his so-called "libertarians" desire: a class-based society where the freedoms of the poor are strictly subservient to the freedoms of the rich.

2. You identify freedoms that are subservient to other freedoms, and enforce those freedoms equally. This means that everyone gains the right not to get punched in the nose, and everyone gains the right to swing their fist mostly as they please, but everyone also loses the right to swing their fist into someone else's nose. This is egalitarianism. And to an authoritarian like Thiel, the idea that he should be denied any right at all, even in principle, is anathema; he desires to rule.