In the main, when people discuss Milton Friedman's fourth category of spending they do so in a mistaken vacuum. How so? They forget to point out HOW other people's money came to be. Stated alternatively, other people spending other people's money on other people, the discussion thereof, many, many times leaves out Friedman's first point: coercion.
Hence one ends with an isolated discussion of how Friedman's fourth category of spending points out the careless way or ineffective/inefficiency produced by other people [politico] spending other people's money [taxpayer] on other people [recipient class]. True enough. However the isolated discussion decouples the coercion and only discusses the single phenomena without discussing [coupling] the ability of such a spending phenomena to emerge.
Think about it, how many times have you heard the discussion, in isolation, of other people spending other people's money on other people??
Meanwhile, twenty six discussions later a separate subject is discussed regarding coercion of forcibly appropriating other people's money. Moreover, the discussion of coercion many times appears in isolation from Friedman's total discussion.
Nay, nay! One must discuss both subjects as coercion must occur first and only then can one arrive at other people spending other people's money on other people.
Problem solved! Please go to 11:00 to 11:34 of the Youtube video below and hear Friedman himself discuss the two phenomena in tandem.