Problem 1: The principles of classic liberalism are about personal autonomy. Leave the people free to run their own lives as they see fit as long as no harm comes to others. The market should be free, very little government interference in matters, and equal rights for everyone. The government should not manipulate the market. It should be left to individuals and society to run. It should only provide things that society cannot provide for itself, like military, roads and education. Government should protect the people and property from harm. Also enforce contracts that individuals have made.
I think two of the strengths are innovation and entrepreneurship. Workers are encouraged to come up with solutions that make jobs more efficient and easier. Entrepreneurship can provide a market for those solutions and provide something other can't. It also brings about diversity. People have different experiences, ideas and education to contribute.
A weakness I see is poor treatment or exploitation of workers. Government had to step in and create a minimum wage. The Civil Act of 1964 provided protection from discrimination for race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Another weakness I think is that there is no room for the greater good of society. For example, imminent domain. What if a person's property would better serve the public if it were used in a different way? Should we take away someone's property and build a giant warehouse that will create hundreds or thousands of jobs or a hospital? Classic liberalism says no, they want the freedom to use and own their property.
I think the setting up a society or running a small society is viable, but not with a large society like ours. There are too many people to trust not to cause and too many differences of opinion. What one considers harm would not be considered harm to another. Gay marriage is an example. Some say their marriage would be harmed by gay marriage. Some say gay couples are harmed by not being able to marry. Someone has to decide who is harmed. In 2008 the mortgage industry crashed the housing market causing harm to a lot of people. Afterwards the government sought fit to increase regulations on mortgage lenders.
Problem 2: Classical Liberalism's basic principles regarding political and economic freedom lie largely within the free market, autonomy, and laissez-faire economics. Laissez-fair literally means, "let it be," indicating the system's desire to let the market work itself without the interference of the government. The government, then, would focus solely on three things: protecting society from threats, protecting its citizens from oppression within society, and maintaining public works projects which cannot be done by any one individual. Society moves the market along, and the market helps society by allowing it to work towards its own self interest.
The main strength of laissez-faire economics lies in its autonomy separate from the government. Government interference within the market can lead to an overreliance on the government for things such as bailouts or loans. Furthermore, without the government intervening, there is less restrictions and regulations on what can be sold in the market. This incentivizes business to maximize profits without having to worry about government interference. Another benefit of laissez-faire economics is the lack of taxation. Since businesses are free from governmental interference, there are no taxes to be paid, meaning that businesses make more money than they would otherwise. The major weakness of laissez-faire economics comes from a lack of balance within the market in regards to prices and the rights of workers. When demand is high but supply is low, businesses can gouge prices in order to force buyers to pay exorbitant fees for items that would otherwise cost much less. Furthermore, monopolies can arise, dominating a market and forcing customers to pay higher prices for certain items. The wages of workers would also be left to business, potentially resulting in lower wages for workers due to a lack of a minimum wage.
In regards to political freedom, Classical Liberalism takes an approach that prioritizes the freedoms of the individual over that of the government or state. Locke's ideals of "life, liberty, and property" best describes the freedoms sought by Classical Liberal thinkers. Because we are all equal in nature at its simplest state, we must all be equal within society. The government works to protect this equality and freedom both within society and from outside threats. Should a governmental body overstep its bounds, it is no longer a legitimate government.
Classical Liberalism has its flaws (especially within the sphere of economics), but I think it does offer some good ideas, especially considering the time period in which it was proposed. The idea that we are all equal regardless of social status is a good starting point for a society that wishes to achieve equality in other ways such as through gender, race, and religion. The government being a body meant to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens is also something I liked. I wonder how far this would go, though. Does this include things such as healthcare, as that would be protecting someone's life? I like a lack of governmental control in regards to what people can sell to a very certain extent. If there were no limitations on what could be sold, food that has been cooked improperly, dangerous toys for children, and even weapons of war could theoretically be sold. I also dislike the lack of a minimum wage being put in place. Knowing how selfish people are in our world, some business owners would hire those in need and pay them next to nothing to essentially receive free labor. Overall, I think Classical Liberalism has its benefits, but some major downsides heavily weigh my opinion of it.
Problem 3: The basic political and economic freedom principles of classic Liberalism are: men are born with natural rights (life, freedom, and property) and live under natural laws which dictate how they behave and survive. There is a role for an organized government in society, but it's secondary to "nature", and so a government must not interfere with the natural rights or natural laws of men.
The strengths of this philosophy are that it is presented as relatively simple, it challenges the idea that a single ruler like a monarch or the head of a church should be the boss of our lives, and (at least according to John Locke) it allows a bad government to be rejected and replaced by the governed. The weaknesses are that it pretends to be a "law of nature", assuming a level of authority and infallibility that is kind of ridiculous, especially because these "laws" are by/for/about European men only, and subject to the interpretation of those men... who "naturally" interpreted them in the light most favorable to their own supremacy. This philosophy seems to also fail to admit how money, and especially capital, really affect society. Manipulation and propaganda are not dealt with as far as I can tell... what would nature do? The concept of "natural property" is quite weird, too. Like a squirrel owns a nut? Or....?
Is it a viable way to organize a society? I think maybe. These readings (except "The Iron Law of Wages" - yikes) contained a nearly utopian description of a society where men don't seek excess, where basic needs are guaranteed to all, where government ensures public works and defense of the population in a benevolent, common-good way.