I don’t know that there’s any irony there. In my reading, the passage is actually advocating against such laws. And is aimed at the kind of thinking that leads to such laws.

I don’t think he is condoning or advocating for such thinking in that passage - more saying that, if you do want these kind of laws (while he lists some contemporary examples) you have to realise that it won’t actually work and will have other, negative consequences. That’s not him necessarily condoning the thinking or actual moral standing of those examples. Just pointing out what he sees are the realities of such laws.

Look up Curtis Yarvin - he and JD Vance are both sponsored by Peter Theil. And Yarvin’s “philosophy” is basically pretending that CEO kings running their own fiefdoms is the best form of politics.