In your dogmatic ideologue parroting of things you have read on the internet, you have conveniently forgotten to tell us where exactly you got the idea that any of this is "against free markets"? Is there a "free market Bible" that you can quote me? (here's your chance to tell me to go read His Excellency's Dr. Ron Paul 36 books on gold and the coming apocalypse of, gold)As I pointed out, supporting a monopoly on the creation of money and management of the supply of money and credit is not a free market position. Since the medium of exchange is essential in any economy Friedman's position on money disqualifies him as a true champion of individual liberty and freedom. Because for myself, if I follow the historical evolution of classical liberalism, I see no contradiction or rejection of any of the above-mentioned concepts. I certainly don't see them if I follow the evolution of markets throughout history. Your ignorance is common. Most people have been fed a line about the benefits of flexible money controlled by the state. The problem with that position comes from historical facts. It is clear that commodity money has always provided a relatively stable medium of exchange. (Even the great gold discoveries in California and Australia in the mid 19th century did not create material inflationary pressure.) But it is also a historical fact that state fiat money has been a bust when judged through the lens of price stability and purchasing power. There is no period in history that I am aware of when commodity money was replaced by fiat money because of private demand for fiat money. All countries have gone off a commodity standard by state edict, usually to fight some war or another. (See the WWI example as one bit of evidence and the US War of Secession as another.)History shows that commodity money brings a small but steady deflation that rewards workers, savers, and investors while fiat money brings a large and steady inflation that transfers wealth and purchasing power from workers, savers, and investors to the banking system and the state. This is why the first thing that tyrants always did was gain control over the issuance of money.

"Friedman opposed the University of Chicago offering Hayek a position. He still supported state control of money, fiat money, and a central bank. That is hardly a free market champion."In your dogmatic ideologue parroting of things you have read on the internet, you have conveniently forgotten to tell us where exactly you got the idea that any of this is "against free markets"? Is there a "free market Bible" that you can quote me? (here's your chance to tell me to go read His Excellency's Dr. Ron Paul 36 books on gold and the coming apocalypse of, gold)Because for myself, if I follow the historical evolution of classical liberalism, I see no contradiction or rejection of any of the above-mentioned concepts. I certainly don't see them if I follow the evolution of markets throughout history. But of course, prior experience of the human race, nor the principles of classical liberalism and their evolution, are of any consequence to the dogmatic ideologue. He can only say "Friedman liked fiat money and therefore he was anti-free market", as if it self-evident that "fiat money" is anti free market, while tying your currency to sea shells or the stuff jewelry is made out of, is pro free market. Why? That is never explained. Because to the dogmatic ideologue what matters are not the questions of what particular end is intended, and what methods are most likely to lead to the desired results (those desired results being derived from concepts of classical liberalism). No. What matters is dogma. Gold is good. That's it. Death to all enemies of Gold. Of course, the fact that every single commodity backed currency in history has FAILED, certainly does little to make the dogmatic ideologue think. Of course, the modern concepts of classical liberalism and the defense of free markets rest especially on the practical, not the ideological; free markets and free people are better BECAUSE they produce BETTER results. (except for the Ayn Rand types on whom it all rests on the ideological. But then again, the fringe is a fringe because they're in the fringe) But you don't ask those questions. You just parrot a particular prescription without consideration of whether it really does produce better results or not, or whether it has shortcomings which undue its advantages, or whether it is realistic and consistent with human experience.

"Friedman opposed the University of Chicago offering Hayek a position. He still supported state control of money, fiat money, and a central bank. That is hardly a free market champion."In your dogmatic ideologue parroting of things you have read on the internet, you have conveniently forgotten to tell us where exactly you got the idea that any of this is "against free markets"? Is there a "free market Bible" that you can quote me? (here's your chance to tell me to go read His Excellency's Dr. Ron Paul 36 books on gold and the coming apocalypse of, gold)Because for myself, if I follow the historical evolution of classical liberalism, I see no contradiction or rejection of any of the above-mentioned concepts. I certainly don't see them if I follow the evolution of markets throughout history. But of course, prior experience of the human race, nor the principles of classical liberalism and their evolution, are of any consequence to the dogmatic ideologue. He can only say "Friedman liked fiat money and therefore he was anti-free market", as if it self-evident that "fiat money" is anti free market, while tying your currency to sea shells or the stuff jewelry is made out of, is pro free market. Why? That is never explained. Because to the dogmatic ideologue what matters are not the questions of what particular end is intended, and what methods are most likely to lead to the desired results (those desired results being derived from concepts of classical liberalism). No. What matters is dogma. Gold is good. That's it. Death to all enemies of Gold. Of course, the fact that every single commodity backed currency in history has FAILED, certainly does little to make the dogmatic ideologue think. Of course, the modern concepts of classical liberalism and the defense of free markets rest especially on the practical, not the ideological; free markets and free people are better BECAUSE they produce BETTER results. (except for the Ayn Rand types on whom it all rests on the ideological. But then again, the fringe is a fringe because they're in the fringe) But you don't ask those questions. You just parrot a particular prescription without consideration of whether it really does produce better results or not, or whether it has shortcomings which undue its advantages, or whether it is realistic and consistent with human experience.

Today, I went to the beach front with my children. I found a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daghtuer and said You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear. She placed the shell to her ear and screamed. There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear. She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is totally off topic but I had to tell someone!