He must have read about the People's State of San Francisco's recent
For example, if you want to smoke crack, I don’t really care. However I’d like people to be able to discriminate aggressively against crack-smokers. In a hypothetical world in which property rights were very strong and strongly enforced, smoking crack and sundry other things would effectively be illegal. They’d also be policed a lot better than they currently are. A lot of things that are currently legal would also probably be effectively illegal.
A truly free world would be a highly-discriminatory and highly-judgmental world.
Regardless, I think that Foseti's opinion flies in the face of observed reality.
Less/no government interference results in economic growth. Economic growth results in rich people. Rich people have different ethics than poor people. One of the ethics that rich people tend to have that poor people don't is the trader/forager ethic of cooperation and tolerance. I'd far sooner expect reactionary/HBD intolerance to be effectively illegal in a free/rich world than to expect that smoking crack would be (effectively) illegal. Wealth changes things.