Friedman v Rothbard

How can you tell if a person truly advocates a free market economy? Simple. He prefers Rothbard to Friedman.

Here are a few excerpts from a recent exchange sparked by this article. Missing Milton Friedman.

Tim Lee writes:

If only the free-market right still had such a powerfully persuasive "technician advising the state how to be more efficient", our economy might now be slightly less screwed. Maybe it would help were "advising the state to be more efficient" less widely considered "evil work".

Gary North responds:

We need less efficient government. Friedman never grasped this. Rothbard did. The few Establishment economists and columnists who have read Rothbard have never forgiven him for this...

Friedman was the main apologist for fiat money in the free market camp. He believed in free market liberty, but not where it is really important: education (vouchers based on state-confiscated money) and money itself (central banking based on a grant of state power: a monopoly). Murray Rothbard challenged both ideas. He therefore remains a pariah to the Establishment.

George Selgin and Donald Boudreaux have also weighed in. Robert Wenzel details most of the debate here.