Favorite commentary on JFK's innaugration quote...

[livehard]

Comes from Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom.  If you have a second I would suggest reading the below.

In a much quoted passage in his inaugural address, President Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country." Neither half of the statement expresses a relation between the citizen and his government that is worthy of the ideals of free men in a free society. The paternalistic "what your country can do for you" implies that government is the patron, the citizen the ward, a view that is at odds with the free man's belief in his own responsibility for his own destiny. The organismic, "what you can do for your 'country" implies the government is the master or the deity, the citizen, the servant or the votary.

To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them. He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions. But he regards government as a means, an instrumentality, neither a grantor of favors and gifts, nor a master or god to be blindly worshipped and served. He recognizes no national goal except as it is the consensus of the goals that the citizens severally serve. He recognizes no national purpose except as it is the consensus of the purposes for which the citizens severally strive.

The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather "What can I and my compatriots do through government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities, to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?

And he will accompany this question with another: How can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect?

Freedom is a rare and delicate plant. Our minds tell us, and history confirms, that the great threat to freedom is the concentration of power. Government is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is an instrument through which we can exercise our freedom; yet by concentrating power in political hands, it is also a threat to freedom. Even though the men who wield this power initially be of good will and even though they be not corrupted by the power they exercise, the power will both attract and form men of a different stamp.

[El Barto]

Using Friedman's own definition,  what Kennedy was suggesting is asking "what I can do to help the people with whom I share common heritage and common traditions."  A rather noble sentiment, in my opinion.  Although I can certainly see how it doesn't mesh with the every man for himself philosophy of modern conservatism. 

[Perpetual Change]

I always took that more as a reflection of how proud we were as a nation before. Today the most popular rhetoric is so centered around getting the government away from playing an active role in society and the world that you'd never think just 50 years ago most Americans were under the impression that the government could do good things and ours in particular could do them better than anyone else.

I guess it comes down to that time in our nation's history. In the 60's, we were still high off of the World Savior role our contribution to World War II gained us, but the Soviets were around and had contributed to that and had a system different than our own so we had something to prove: that we were the real winners and our way of life and our government were superior. Now we've got China, but we don't take them as seriously. Mainly because we've been on top for so long, and they have so many problems both with their economy and their human rights issues. But I'm guessing it's also because China hasn't had it's chance to win World War Three yet and win the respect of the world. Give them economic superiority and that first taste of "Greatest Nation" talk and I'll bet Chinese start caring even less about the government throwing Ai Wei Wei into prison for no reason.

Wow that was way more off-topic then I intended it to be.

[livehard]

Using Friedman's own definition,  what Kennedy was suggesting is asking "what I can do to help the people with whom I share common heritage and common traditions."  A rather noble sentiment, in my opinion.  Although I can certainly see how it doesn't mesh with the every man for himself philosophy of modern conservatism.

According to Friedman, Kennedy was asking the people to serve some higher power, some puropse or entity that is more important than the goals and desires of the individual person.  Cassical Liberalism sates there is no higher purpose.  Instead, we should be asking through the means of government, what can we morally and effectively do, keeping liberty as the highest goal.

[jsem]

That book is a libertarian classic. When I first read it I was confused by the monetary policy bits, and I had not yet understood the other side of the coin for libertarians - that is the Austrian school versus the Chicago school/monetarism that Friedman represented.

I can definitely see the point Friedman makes here, the people should never serve the government in any regard.

[El Barto]

I'm puzzled on why Friedman is considered an expert on what JFK was saying?  Like most things,  there's a matter of interpretation,  and I seem to see Kennedy's speech differently than Friedman. 

[Scheavo]

"Ask not what your country can do for you,"

It seems Friedman, and you, ignore the "not" part of his speech. Don't ask what you country can do for you, don't look at your government as a patron. So that point is completely without merit, as it fully distorts what Kennedy said.

"Ask what you can do for your country,"

This is a free choice, something you should freely do, come to your own decision, and act upon that. It's also not mentioning the government there, at all, is it? You could help your country by starting up a business, if that's how you answer the question. The Founder's themselves always talked about fighting for the greater good, I mean hell, they all fought a revolution, which was hardly an easy undertaking, becuase they felt it was for the greater good. Talk about personal sacrifice!

Classic liberals were not nearly as "each man for himself," as you seem to imply.