Solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.

Hobbes depicted the life of man as solitary, nasty, brutish, and short, referring to the violent forms of coercion used by man in the absence of organized societal law. Basic freedom in such a state is limited merely by fear of vengeful actions perpetrated by the victims of your actions. Friedman's hails capitalism and the open market as the harbinger of individual freedom as long as governing bodies provide insurance that contracts are upheld, monopolies are checked, and exchange occurs free of coercion. But is this all that is required for individual freedom? Friedman notes that a socialist society does not permit the freedom to voice a dissenting view because to campaign such a view requires funding and the only members of society with adequate funds for such an endeavor are those who directly benefit from the existing system and therefore hold no incentive to support dissent. Hence, the control of individual wealth appears to be a prerequisite for freedom of action. We can then accept that there will be variance in various persons abilities to acquire such wealth, and even given all transactions are voluntary and informed, it is possible to enter into such agreements so that the end result leaves one group of individuals incredibly wealthy while another lives without enough to garner food and shelter on a daily basis. This can occur in the free market system when individuals are truly allowed to engage and compete freely. So while Friedman's vision does not include clubs and broken bones he still verges on depicting a world with the potential to be solitary, nasty, brutish, and short.