His thinking rests on the assumption that man is a failed being, and that therefore we can't trust government to regulate man. Man's ideas, as a projection of that essential wretchedness, inevitably fail when we erect governmental systems putting those ideas into play.
Of course, the Friedmans of the world fail to apply this same notion of wretchedness to other systems and apparatuses (such as market economies), and that's exactly where the problem lies.
Instead, they believe that forms of competition will result in the best ideas winning out. The problem here again, borrowing their ideology, is that ideas sometimes/mostimes can't overcome this so-called wretchedness.
Nietzsche wrote that since the dawn of man, the ideas that won out were the errors, common sense is simply the reproduction of the strongest ideas, the ideas held by the brute, which came to seem natural after a long time.
There is no guarantee that in any form of competition, the best (whatever that means) ideas will win out. Bad ideas are just as capable of winning in any form of competition.
That is likely why Friedman's economics is best referred to as social Darwinism, which is how I think of it. Yes, we have cell phones today and investment helped this invention along, although it would have happened anyway. The trouble is that after paying all this money for a cell phone and service, I don't have anyone to call.
