To continue Peter Stillman's point, from the 40th anniversary ed.Preface of
Friedman's _Capitalism and Freedom_ (2002), p. ix:
"If there is one major change I would make, it would be to replace the
dichotomy of economic freedom and political freedom with the trichotomy of
economic freedom, civil freedom, and political freedom.  After I finished
the book, Hong Kong, before it was returned to China, persuaded me that
while economic freedom is a necessary condition for civil and political
freedom, political freedom, desirable though it may be, is not a necessary
condition for economic and civil freedom.  Along these lines, the one major
defect in the book seems to me an [x] inadequate treatment of political
freedom, which under some circumstances promotes economic and civic freedom,
and under others, inhibits economic and civic freedom."

Francis Fukuyama also emphasized that there did not seem to be a *necessary*
connection between democracy and capitalism in _The End of History and the
Last Man_. This was consistent with the general line of neoconservative
argument in the 1980s that authoritarianism, while not admirable, was
acceptable, but totalitarianism was absolutely inimical. The crucial
difference between the two was not political rights or even civil rights,
but economic rights.

This shades the discussion away from economic theory per se toward social
and political theory, but that's a consequence of taking seriously the idea
of political economy rather than simply economics. In contrast to Friedman's
view, consider T.E. Marshall's interpretation of the historical development
from civil rights (which encompass economic rights) up into the 18th
century, to political rights in the 19th century, to social rights (welfare
considerations) in the 20th.

Paul Turpin