Steve Horwitz instantly shows his colors when he connects classical liberalism to J. S. Mill in the third paragraph. He is either a poor historian or he is deliberately trying to derail classical liberalism by attempting to take it down another track that allows for empirical hermeneutics. The truth is that Horwitz may call himself a libertarian and he may even be a libertarian but it is an outright lie that he is a classical liberal. His 'classical liberalism' lineage stems from J.S. Mill which makes him a 'liberal' with the likes of Keynes (whose fallacious economics stems from Mill).
Is Horwitz a Keynesian? No. Is Horwitz a classical liberal? No. Is Horwitz a hermeneutic libertarian? Yes. Would hermeneutic libertarians try to distort the message of true classical liberalism? Yes. Does true classical liberalism represent a 'danger' to the ego-driven interpretations of the hermeneutic libertarians? Yes. Is it now clear why Horwitz is acting like a neocon?
For more information go to my newly renovated website.
If you know of anyone interested in ethics and economics,
or liberty and justice, please send them this link: