Those aren't totally unreasonable points, but I feel like they're somewhat undercut by: a) the people who advocate most strongly for the Friedman Doctrine (max

Those aren't totally unreasonable points, but I feel like they're somewhat undercut by: a) the people who advocate most strongly for the Friedman Doctrine (maximising shareholder value at all costs) also seem to be the people who most want to abolish (or prevent) government-provided safety nets, like state pensions, or universal healthcare, or public education, or UBI. It doesn't seem like it's a "Well, so long as we have these valuable strong public institutions, we might as well see how taking the reigns off private investment turns out" type situation, as much as it is a "I got mine, fuck you" libertarian class-warfare fantasy. b) the idea that the public programs we have are expansive and comprehensive enough to have "crowded out private efforts in those areas" feels like a stretch to me.