According to the video:
American model of free speech, which largely rejects hate speech laws, is essential because governments and institutions should not have the power to decide which ideas are acceptable. They argue that restricting speech does more than silence offensive opinions, it shapes what people are able to think, discourages open debate, and makes society less resilient by suppressing controversial or unpopular viewpoints. While acknowledging that hate speech laws are intended to protect vulnerable groups, the speaker contends that in practice such laws mainly protect the authority and narratives of those in power. They conclude that true intellectual freedom requires allowing even offensive or unpopular ideas to be expressed so they can be challenged rather than censored.
Strong public education does not necessarily lead to critical thought. I think you are right in the respect people need critical thinking to engage in a civic society that respects human rights.
You are never going to be able to compete with a natural monopoly nor should you need to. I think you touch on, but don’t identify that regulatory capture is the problem. This is a byproduct of corporations getting way to powerful. I have never heard how a libertarian minded person intends to solve this as peeling away the regulation is nonsensical in its description of what is necessary.
I don’t think UBI is going to be the panacea you think it is. It could easily be used as a tool of control much the same way social welfare is handled currently.
Not a lot to disagree with here honestly, a lot of decent thought but very speculative to say the least. I think expecting every human being to have excellent critical thought, a deep understanding of policy, and to be an excellent money manager to boot is a bit unrealistic.