Source analysis

Mica Pettibone

The first source addresses the idea that people cannot be free while being burdened by fear and

insecurity. The first source goes on to say that a welfare state if one where this fear has been removed,

allowing people to be free. This source is clearly in support of modern liberalism as Welfare state only

exists in forms of modern liberalism. Modern Liberalism is classical liberalism, but uses Keynes economic

ideals to create a system better suited to the needs of all, this creates a stable society one in which

people can achieve whatever they are capable of. This source directly quotes one of the key principles of

modern liberalism, Welfare state, the idea of providing a safety net to prevent the populace from being

afraid and insecure and therefore preventing desperation in the population because desperation is what

brings down governing systems. It also touches on Human, and Individual, rights when it speaks of

“…without fear of oppression on race, creed or color.” Human rights are the basis for the equal

treatment of all people, as opposed to individual rights, which in the previous system of classical

liberalism where simply whoever could afford rights could have them. This source opposes Classical

Liberalism on the basis that people in a capitalist economic system are always afraid of not having

enough money to survive are not free. People who are bound by fear of not having a job not having

money not being able to provide for their families starving and being homeless are in no position to

build on their talents or look for happiness, they must focus on the constant struggle to meet their

needs. Much like everyday predators whose entire time is spent searching out food, resting, and

searching out food again. When people are struggling just to survive they cannot be happy and the

stress of survival is enough to make them begin to rebel against the system.

The second and third sources are more in support of classical liberalism. The second criticizes the

socialist movement based on the idea that socialists do not consider the means of production and in

doing so they run the country into the ground. This is a very capitalist way of seeing things, purely

because of their dislike of the ‘evening out’ of the wealth, suggesting that there is only enough money in

a region to create poverty if it is spread equally. This and the high regard for means of production and

efficiency suggest that the speaker is influenced, or believes in a capitalist economy and by doing this

they are backing classical liberalism. The principles of self interest and competition are clearly shown in

the speakers dislike of taking from the ‘haves’ we see a definite preference toward self interest, the

speaker believes that people who are ‘haves’ have earned their wealth and require it. The concept of

private property is also seen in the speaker’s criticism of seizing property from the ‘haves’. The speaker

would rather see a system that is geared towards the means of production and increasing efficiency,

dollars and cents to any capitalist. For this type of government and economic system you would need

classical liberalisms idea of Economic freedom.

The third source is also showing support of classical liberalism, this is seen in the well-to-do men being

upset with the poor’s gain, saying ‘if it benefits everyone what good is it?’ This shows the same ideas of

self interest and competition, the ‘haves’ in the cartoon want to stay haves, maybe have more, but they

don’t want the ‘have-not’s’ to gain as well, this doesn’t widen the gap between unsuccessful and

successful, they think of their own interest when they desire for monetary gain for themselves alone.

This same point also supports the principle of competition, the cartoons characters want to compete

and do better than others. This desire to be making as much money as possible while other less

fortunate people suffer for their supposed stupidity is something that shows the cartoons support of

classical liberalism’s form of economic freedom, where the government had no intervention in the

system. This opposes the idea of Welfare state as Welfare state puts a ‘cap’ on how rich a person can be

by slowing down the economic trends pulling out extra money in the highs and spending in the lows. In

this way source three, and source two, are in opposition to the first source.