Question for Friedman

Clearly Friedman is an advocate of Mill's individual in society. He says, in an example about social security: "True, the number of citizens who regard compulsory old age insurance as a deprivation of freedom may be few, but the believer in freedom has never counted noses" (9). Is freedom for the individual/minority, according to Friedman, based entirely in the ability, in a free market, to be able to acquire money to raise awareness for the individual's belief? Friedman makes off the greatness of capitalism being the ease at which to vocalize your belief just by, "convinc[ing] a few wealthy people," and, "it is only necessary to persuade [media groups] that the propagation can be financially successful" (17). But it seems to be Friedman is over-simplifying the injustices of class caused by money inequality. Take, for instance, one of the leading advantages people with money have over those who don't: education. Can the lesser educated poor man convince the wealthy educated man he both has a belief that's important and will make the wealthy man money? Do all beliefs worth fighting for even fall under a category of "profit"? Does that immediately make them unimportant to Friedman? What happened to the importance of the individual? Or consider other inequalities produced by money, such as "taste". If the man is dressed in overalls, instead of a "proper" suit and tie that all business men know to wear, going to even have the man's attention? And if so many individuals seek to win the rich man's attention and support, how does the poor man stand out? So much is dictated by problems of money.