Sunday, January 16, 2011

Quote of the Day: JFK and Milton Friedman

"Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country."

~ John F. Kennedy

"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.

How can we benefit from the promise of government while avoiding the threat to freedom? Two broad principles embodied in our Constitution give an answer that has preserved our freedom so far, though they have been violated repeatedly in practice while proclaimed as precept.

First, the scope of government must be limited. Its major function must be to protect our freedom both from the enemies outside our gates and from our fellow-citizens: to preserve law and order, to enforce private contracts, to foster competitive markets. Beyond this major function, government may enable us at times to accomplish jointly what we would find it more difficult or expensive to accomplish severally. However, any such use of government is fraught with danger. We should not and cannot avoid using government in this way. But there should be a clear and large balance of advantages before we do. By relying primarily on voluntary co-operation and private enterprise, in both economic and other activities, we can insure that the private sector is a check on the powers of the governmental sector and an effective protection of freedom of speech, of religion, and of thought.

The second broad principle is that government power must be dispersed. If government is to exercise power, better in the county than in the state, better in the state than in Washington. If I do not like what my local community does, be it in sewage disposal, or zoning, or schools, I can move to another local community, and though few may take this step, the mere possibility acts as a check. If I do not like what my state does, I can move to another. If I do not like what Washington imposes, I have few alternative in this world of jealous nations."

~ Milton Friedman, from Capitalism and Freedom

Grouch: Almost 50 years ago, on January 20, 1961, JFK made this famous statement as part of his inaugural address that has inspired millions of pro big government activists over the ensuring decades. I've never been very comfortable with sentiments in this quote and, quite frankly, found it did not express my beliefs. I believe that government is best when it gets out of the way and let's people pursue their self-interests, that the country is the strongest when people are not the servants of government but the servants of their own talents and abilities. In the years since JFK took office, government has expanded enormously, changing from a medium sized Frankenstein to a gigantic Frankenstein that tries to regulate almost every aspect of its citizen's lives. The people in power have made a sport out of gifting taxpayer money to their cronies and campaign contributors, and now they even want to tell us what we can and can't feed our children. How much more ridiculous can things get before we the people reach the limit of can be tolerated? It's high time to start disassembling Frankenstein, and restoring freedom and individual responsibility. But it will take men and women of extraordinary character to do so, and, sadly, I see few of those types on the horizon.

HT: Carpe Diem


  1. When that senator apologized to BP, I knew there was a huge divide between the party and the people!

  2. I don't think anyone in government or at BP has much to crow about concerning the oil spill. It was a classroom exercise in how not to manage a crisis-- starting from government forcing them to drill that far out, to the government presenting this rig a coveted safety award the year before, to the shoddy work on the well and the lack of a disaster recovery plan by BP. But the real kicker was the $20B settlement fund. BP and the administration colluded brilliantly to limit BP's liability and screw the victims of the oil spill out of larger settlements. It was absolutely brilliant. Of the $20B, only about $2.5B has been distributed, and the remainder will be returned to BP. That's what large campaign contributions will get you.

  3. So much for putting a boot to the neck of BP, eh?

    Re: The quote I've been a little uncomfortable with it and look at things more the way you alluded to here.