Why did Friedman rant againt monetary gold in "Capitalism and Freedom"?

Friedman said in "Capitalism and Freedom" (on p. 40 as I recall) that
it takes effort to dig gold out of the ground in South Africa, just to
rebury it again in Fort Knox, and that gold was therefore not an
appropriate basis for money. But he seems to be ignoring several
obvious arguments, and I haven't found anywhere his answers (or the
answers of any like-minded economist):
1. Mankind is going to dedicate the same effort to digging gold out of
the ground, just to rebury it again in a vault, regardless of whether
that gold is officially used as money by any of the world's nations.
This fact is proven by modern history. So abandoning gold as official
money doesn't save us the effort of mining the gold.
2. The fact that the supply of gold can't be increased without effort
is an argument in favor of gold's use as money, not against its use,
since the effort required is a limitation on the increase in the
supply, and limitation on increase in supply is an essential feature of
money.
3. Gold is just metal, and fiat currency is just pieces of paper, and
although some of both is collected as art and for other nonmonetary
uses, the majority use for both is as money (one official, the other
not). As economic expansion increases the demand for money, the value
of money goes up, and governments print more paper and miners mine more
metal to meet the demand. The only difference is whether the profit
from the increase in supply accrues to governments or to mining
companies.

Friedman is obviously intelligent and well-educated, and writes well,
and I found this book overall very enlightening. But this particular
argument, that gold isn't an appropriate basis for money, seemed oddly
unjustified in the book.
Certainly the points I mentioned above must be well-known, with
probably equally well-known responses. But what are those responses?

.

Relevant Pages