[trombonepolitician]

I am considering labeling myself a classical liberal. I'm an economic and fiscal centrist, but a cultural liberal, and very secular. However, I have a few questions.

Is classical liberalism (CL) inherently capitalist? Can classic liberals be skeptical of laissez-faire capitalism and socialism (both by state and social anarchy)?

Is CL inherently individualist? I used to think of myself as individualist, but my quest to be as respectful to the greatest amount of people has made me reconsider possibly being spiritual and possibly more egalitarian than I thought.

Must everything have a cost? I for one think that certain health care, education, food, and perhaps energy are necessities, but I haven't thought this over completely (I'm no green environmentalist).

The trade debate I have not completely decided on yet. Trade or "exchange" between individuals, small firms, and communities should be "free." Large business is a tougher issue. With that I do like ideas of fair and balanced trade.

Some indicators that I might be a classical liberal are that I support more localized governments and I am very skeptical of a larger government entity trying to provide anything, but I'm for what works more than principle. The US is stuck with the Affordable Care Act, for instance, and when we are ever going to reduce our welfare state is unknown. Welfare should be more local, and I'm not even saying it should be private! A big problem is that there is a very twisted, limited scope of how individuals help other individuals. I feel like all government can do is throw money around through tax credits, deductions, cuts, printing, fiscal/monetary policy, etc (I do think there are certain advantages to these though, don't get me wrong).

Other approaches/ideologies that have thus far influenced me are:

Paleoconservatism/Distributism: For the localism and communitarianism, though the social traditionalism I disagree with

The Third Way: for reconciling left and right-wing politics- I just started looking at New Labour today. However, as I stated in the last paragraph, I think smaller government is an ultimate goal and I feel like the TW still asks too much of the fed government

Left-Libertarianism- Specifically the steiner-vallentyne and market anarchist schools, though I'm no anarchist, I view it as impractical, though I like many ideas that the market anarchists propose

Georgism- The idea that land should be taxed according to unimproved value, but the fact that many of these people advocate this tax is a be-all-end-all for general welfare makes me skeptical

Cosmopolitanism- For promoting world citizenship and being against nationalism (I personally think countries are a means to an end)

Paleo-liberalism/old left/early populist progressivism- Calling for unionization to protect workers' rights and seeking to "reform" the market instead of revolution

Through this, I would like to come to a concise definition of classic liberalism and find more for my ideology.

[Soixante-Retard]

Hello!

Is classical liberalism (CL) inherently capitalist?

If by "capitalist" you mean support for private property, then yes, classical liberalism is "inherently" capitalist (but this does not mean it is adverse to voluntary communal property).

The program of liberalism, therefore, if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property, that is, private ownership of the means of production (for in regard to commodities ready for consumption, private ownership is a matter of course and is not disputed even by the socialists and communists). All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand.

Can classic liberals be skeptical of laissez-faire capitalism and socialism (both by state and social anarchy)?

It depends on the definition you give "laissez-faire" and "socialism". Classical liberals have no quarrel with socialism as practiced voluntarily, e.g. the kibbutz, the home .

Is CL inherently individualist?

Yes, unequivocally. But it appears that you may have misunderstood individualism as egoism which it is not. In fact your statement:

my quest to be as respectful to the greatest amount

is individualist. Individualism is about treating humans as ends in themselves and not as means to someone's ends.

Must everything have a cost?

Unfortunately, yes. Since we live in a universe with scarce resources which have alternative uses, everything has a cost - it's opportunity cost.

The mundane fact of insufficiency must be insisted upon because so many discussions of 'unmet needs' proceed as if 'better' policies would solve the problem at hand without creating deficiencies elsewhere. Typical of this attitude is the comment that, 'If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we-" followed by whatever project the speaker favors. The fact that we sent a man to the moon is part of the reason why many other things could not be done.

I do like ideas of fair and balanced trade.

"Fair" trade is nothing of the sort and trade is, and must be, balanced at all times. Free trade means no quotas and no tariffs between exchanges. In other words, do you want exchange to be as inexpensive as possible, and thus free resources up for other needs, or do you want people to pay through the nose for trade and thus have little else to spend on? Free enterprise benefits all, especially the least well off.

a concise definition of classic liberalism

If classical liberalism means anything it is equality before the law.

If you want a few works on classical liberalism, I would recommend Fredéric Bastiat's What is Seen and What is Not Seen, Ludwig von Mises's concise and essay-like Liberalism and Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose (book and TV series).

If you are searching for paradise and comfortable solutions, then you may be disappointed with classical liberalism.

[Eran]

Soixante-Retard has given some excellent answers.

I'd first make a "housekeeping" comment. You posed your question in the "Liberalism" forum, but, despite its misleading name, "Classical Liberalism" is actually much closer (if not identical with) "Libertarianism", as these terms are used in these forums.

Thus the Libertarianism forum as the most appropriate place to explore the content and implications of Classical Liberalism.

Having said that, I'd like to expand on the question of individualism.

Classical Liberals tend to advocate methodological individualism, but are neutral on substantive individualism (i.e. egoism or selfishness). Methodological Individualism merely states that social phenomena need to be understood in terms of the combination of individual action, with individuals making choices based on their circumstances, information available to them, and their self-determined priorities.

These priorities may well (and often do) include caring for the immediate well-being of others. No classical liberal or libertarian ever rejects such priorities. Even Ayn Rand who sometimes sounds like she does, doesn't really.