I thought I would start December with a reflection on Milton Friedman. In the Introduction of his classic, Capitalism and Freedom, he says from the outset:
"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." It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on it origin and not its content. 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 a government is a 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 that the government is the master or the deity, the citizen a servant or votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them...
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 the government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?"
Hobbes was one of the first modern political thinkers to address liberty in a modern context. He dealt with the problem of freedom in a monarchy. His views were initial attempts but frankly wrong. He was trying to justify the existence of a monarchy while at the same time establishing that men were free. Friedman is the anti-Hobbes, the one who articulates true freedom. Thus as I begin the month that will culminate in my having been at this for a year I thought it worth the while to remind my reader of what Friedman wrote in 1962.
"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." It is a striking sign of the temper of our times that the controversy about this passage centered on it origin and not its content. 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 a government is a 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 that the government is the master or the deity, the citizen a servant or votary. To the free man, the country is the collection of individuals who compose it, not something over and above them...
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 the government" to help us discharge our individual responsibilities to achieve our several goals and purposes, and above all, to protect our freedom?"
Hobbes was one of the first modern political thinkers to address liberty in a modern context. He dealt with the problem of freedom in a monarchy. His views were initial attempts but frankly wrong. He was trying to justify the existence of a monarchy while at the same time establishing that men were free. Friedman is the anti-Hobbes, the one who articulates true freedom. Thus as I begin the month that will culminate in my having been at this for a year I thought it worth the while to remind my reader of what Friedman wrote in 1962.
Posts
