"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 its origin and not on 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 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 that 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."
--Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, 1962

I agree with the first half of the quote, his characterization of problems w/ JFK's statist slogan. But I disagree w/ his concluding alternative vision and definition of a country and government. This indicates that he is a liberal classically understood or a libertarian in contemporary usage, but not a conservative or traditionalist. I suppose one has to make allies against Leviathan somehow.

Milton Friedman is a liberal, yes.

But what about the quote disagrees with conservatism I am unsure. Unless you mean that he did not mention conservatism as a steward of tradition, but thats generally most the role of the entrenched aristocracy than the federal beauracracy, yes?

did not mention government as a steward of tradition*

I love Milton Friedman. He's intelligent, courageous and usually right. But he's got this one all wrong. "Ask not what your country can do for you" is clearly a request to quit seeing the government as a parent. Friedman's inferring the contrary shows he is bringing some intellectual baggage to his interpretation.
"Ask what you can do for your country" does not show subservience. In fact, asking whether I can help some feminist might earn me the label of "condescending" but she would not call me "servile."

"Country" to Kennedy (and to me, and I hope to all of you) is more than "the collection of individual who compose it" (and it is certainly more than "government," contrary to Friedman's thrice-made assumption in this passage). Like "family," it also includes traditions, institutions, history, and relationships that we value. It is not quite as strong as the "communion of saints" through which we are united not only with individuals today, but also individuals of yesterday and of tomorrow--but we do owe something to those who died to give us or to preserve the institutuions prerequisite to freedom and we do have some duty to those individuals of the future to preserve those institutions.

Friedman's extreme individualism is an ideology that sometimes makes him fall for stupid ideas.

"it also includes traditions, institutions, history, and relationships that we value." -DogMcG

"He is proud of a common heritage and loyal to common traditions." -Milton Friedman

Good comment DocMcG.

I have never read Kennedy's speech that the quote is extracted from so your interpretation is certainly possible. Friedman's seemed plausible to me as well. I agree completely on your critique of his response to the quote.

Ben-T,

The clause of Friedman's "He is proud of a common heritage . . . " is followed by a significant "but" and simply hangs awkwardly in that passage. He is trying to both be the rebel individualist and still seem the loyal communitarian. One or the other must win out though as he doesn't indicate how to resolve the tension here.

I don't understand why, unless you feel that every ideal of our society must be backed by government beauracray in order to stand on its own.

If this is the case, I am forced to enquire about how worthy they are.

Milton Freedman is way outside the economics mainstream. A real nutjob.