I wonder how much different this essay would be if the author had read Mises and Rothbard...other than that, pretty spot on...

Friedman’s ‘Market’ is not subject to ‘any’ human standard of morality, political limitations or national interests. Money is free to act without bounds or conventions.

Whose morality should be used to judge what investments are "permitted?"

What political party is to limit them?

Who defines the "national interests" that would encourage or suppress investments?

How does an inanimate thing like money "act?"

What I gleaned from this was that Adam Smith kinda sucked while Milton Friedman was a pretty cool guy

The only bad thing I found in that was he wanted to go back to Adam Smith and was a statist...almost as if he were ignorant of Mises, Rothbard, and Anarcho-Capitalism at all...