I do not believe that the proper way to argue for the only rights-respecting social system on planet Earth is by looking at the consequences. The argument goes:
If you want equality, then you will want free market (laissez faire) capitalism, because capitalism is a better means toward equality than is any other alternative.It is a fact about capitalism, sure, but as an argument it is wrong for up to 2 reasons. Accorder to T. Edward Damer (a pretty smart guy), good arguments satisfy 4 criteria
4) Effective rebuttal to rival arguments
At least one if not 2 rules for good argumentation are broken by Friedman in the video. The pragmatic/utilitarian argument for capitalism yields too much to the opposition -- just like you say it does. It is therefore not a good way to argue for capitalism. Friedman should be given some benefit of some doubt here though, because of the nature of the debate and his warning that his side of the argument -- though more correct than the argument of the young idealist -- is in want of elaboration. Have superior insight, we here know that rights are important because of the kind of creature that man is -- and that is why capitalism is the only moral social system for mankind.
I would have liked to witness a head-to-head debate between Friedman and Rand. There is a possibility, however slight, that when pressed on the really important issues Friedman would buckle and admit that Rand was entirely correct to have her thinking -- including her thinking on capitalism -- be so thoroughly based in unshakable principles.