In the modern world many societies are separated into three economic classes, the rich, the middle class, and the poor. Many societies view the rich as opportunistic and hard working individuals within society who are always striving to achieve more than what they already have. Many other chose to prioritise the wellbeing of other economic classes believing that everyone should share equal opportunity. The three sources demonstrate the clash between these ideals and the benefits that they would bring to their nation's economy. The first source demonstrates the ideology that the as citizens we all have responsibilities determined by our wealth with the highest corporate elite bearing the most responsibility. This source shares strong similarities …show more content…
He holds a firm belief that it's the government's responsibility and obligation is to maintain and enforce rule of law, protection of property, and the citizens ability to provide for their families and friends. The authors belief is that if this is done than the economy. His beliefs share strong similarities with modern liberalism and the philosophy of John Maynard Keynes. He supports government intervention as a means of making sure that the well being of a nation's citizens is preserved. In today's world this type of system is commonly found in mixed economies such as Canada. WIthin Canada’s government the ability to provide for one's family is shown by the the health care system and several social programs and welfare payments for those who struggle to make sufficient income. Higher taxes are put in place as a means to maintain these programs, and due to these taxes varying depending on an individual's income, the rich tend to get taxed more that those in middle or lower classes of the economy. Because of this the ideals represented within this source oppose those reflected in the first source and focuses more on giving everyone the same opportunities rather than uplifting a specific social