"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I agree.
But I would still put his writings on a Conservative Book list.
It is not at all impossible to be both.
He was a "classical" liberal. Marcusian Marxists coopted the term "liberal". Since they have made that word anathma, they've shunned it in favor of the word, "progressive". Their efforts to hide who they really are, only works so far.
Friedman was neither conservative nor libertarian in any meaninful sense. He was an Economist, which is a non-political vocation tending to support the economic policies of both political persuasions.
The only political thing you can say he wasn't was Liberal in the American sense, in that Economics never supports Liberal theology.
His wife was more the conservative. She was even for the War on Terror that he felt was a mistake.
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." - Ronald Reagan
I read "Capitalism and Freedom" and "Free to Choose," and I had great respect for good ol' "Uncle Milt."
I did hear him say that he did not consider himself a conservative. I think he was more of a "libertarian," but you need to be careful with that label because it means different things to different people.
I know that Friedman favored legalization of drugs, but the problem is that if you legalize drugs you also need to hold people responsible for their own choices -- which means that you do NOT provide government subsidized "recovery" programs. So I'm sure Milton would say that you should not legalize drugs unless you also eliminate goverment-subsidized rehabilitation programs. So-called "liberals" (i.e., Leftists) would never go for that, of course.
Another thing I found interesting is that, if I am not mistaken, Friedman recently (i.e., in the past few years) came out in favor of government-subsidized catastrophic health insurance. That surprized me at first, but it makes sense. No, we're not talking here about a Hillary-style "cradle-to-grave" national health care program. We're only talking about *catastrophic* health insurance. The justification is that we essentially provide it already for uninsured people, so we might as well provide for everybody.
Anyway, I thought that was interesting. The question of where "catastrophic" coverage begins is certainly to be a difficult one to agree on, however.