Words in English are frequently polysemic. There are well established philosophical, &quot;left&quot; and &quot;right&quot; meanings to &quot;libertarian&quot; which seem to have evolved in that order. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Libertarianism#Etymology" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Libertarianism#Etymology</a><p>Friedman is clearly closest to the last camp and even self-identified with it. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Milton_Friedman#Libertarianism_and_the_Republican_Party" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Milton_Friedman#Libertarianism...</a><p>Obviously for an article pitched at a general audience, rather than an academic one, some people won&#x27;t know Friedman  so it&#x27;s not unreasonable to expect them to clarify. I presume that&#x27;s why they added the following lines immediately after calling him a &quot;libertarian economist&quot;.<p>&quot;Friedman believed that it should be accompanied by an end to any minimal wage system and any other system of social protection. Friedman also believed it should be as low as possible and financed by a flat income tax (which means that the tax would be universal and at the same rate for all).
So in reality, what Friedman was pushing for was a system which would provide employers with people ready to work for lower salaries at no additional cost to employers.&quot;<p>I can&#x27;t see how any reasonable person could read that and then claim the article was putting Friedman in the wrong camp or being misleading or inaccurate regarding that point.