John Medaille wrote:

> I don't think there is much of a dispute in characterizing the major 
> Austrians as socially conservative and economically liberal.
Saying it doesn't make it so, as Sam Bostaph's and my responses would 
suggest.  Once again, you assert this as a known truth, despite the fact 
that you've been presented with evidence to the contrary.  It's not 
exactly clear what you mean by "social conservative" when you don't 
contest Hayek's unwillingness to use the state to enforce victimless 
"crimes."
> You can interpret the political posturing as you wish, but the fact of 
> the matter is that nearly all of the neo-conservative sages 
> self-identify as followers of Mises and Hayek.
 Let me just end my part in this discussion with two short responses:


1. Once again, you've made a very broad claim without any evidentiary 
support.  The true "neo-conservatives" (as opposed to classical liberals 
or libertarians) who claim to be "followers" of Mises and Hayek, I 
submit, is far less than "nearly all," and I'd be curious to see who you 
think fits that category.

2. Even if it were true that some or many neo-cons did self-identify 
this way, it doesn't mean that:
    a. they are correct in labelling Mises and Hayek as "social 
conservatives"
    b. others who claim to work in the tradition of Mises and Hayek are 
also "social conservatives"

Is it possible, do you think John, to be a consistent Hayekian and be a 
"social liberal"?  I'd like to think I'm living proof it can, but you 
seem to suggest either I'm inconsistent or I'm just a figment of my 
imagination.  (This is all ironic in that the current pop definition of 
"libertarian" is "socially liberal and fiscally conservative".)

In the end, like Sam, I don't think any of this will persuade those who 
are determined to fit thinkers into easy pre-fabricated ideological 
boxes for reasons of their own.

Steve Horwitz