Thank you for your response. If we are going to play the mainstream reference game, we should allow the caveat that socialists dominate the establishment acade

Thank you for your response. If we are going to play the mainstream reference game, we should allow the caveat that socialists dominate the establishment academic landscape. Hayek himself argued this even in 1949. Please see: "The Intellectuals and Socialism", F.A Hayek. While the domination of mainstream discourse may not be as complete and overwhelming as some socialists would prefer, it is palatable. In spite of the above, even Wikipedia describes Hayek as a classical liberal. >Hayek was also a major social theorist and political philosopher of the 20th century and as the co-founder of Mont Pelerin Society he contributed to the revival of classical liberalism in the post-war era >The most interesting among the courageous dissenters of the 1980s were the classical liberals, disciples of F.A. Hayek, from whom they had learned about the crucial importance of economic freedom and about the often-ignored conceptual difference between liberalism and democracy Where Wikipedia is able to directly describe Hayek as a neoliberal, it is in the words of a georgist. I'll allow that Hayek's classical liberalism influenced neoliberalism, but the distinction is there. I'll go one step further and claim that the classical liberal influence wasn't strong enough. Going back to the earlier Mises link, you can see how there were disputes within the MPS. Attributing the end product of neoliberalism to Hayek or Mises is an inaccurate generalization. >At the London School of Economics, Popper was close to the neoliberal theorist Friedrich Hayek. Hayek, Mises and the classical liberal tradition are better represented today by the Austrians, which is widely held to be heterodox. It comes as no surprise. Neither were friends to the socialist cause. Socialist dominated institutions would naturally have that incentive. Furthermore, if you'll allow the digression, individualists by definition would need less approval and validation from the collective. The distinction between having an influence on and being a proponent of something is wide. The chasm grows when the influence was insufficient. At the top of the page on your provided Princeton link, sentence one: >Though not all scholars agree on the meaning of the term, “neoliberalism”... Neoliberalism as it is used in general parlance, especially by critics of the market, has come to mean half-hearted market based solutions which both the socialists and the classical liberals would regard as failures. Take the highly regulated 'private' healthcare system in the US as an example. Market advocates might claim, "at least it isn't socialism" at best. The size of the political economy eclipses the possibility of genuine free-market solutions here. Yet, the socialists would increase the size and scope of the state while blaming the market for failing. Neoliberalism is a pejorative in the mouths of socialists. It is wielded indiscriminately. Classical liberals would attribute the failures of neoliberalism to the size and scope of government interference, a lack of genuine free-market reform. >While one might discuss policies intended to increase economic freedom as if they could be overseen by a small, limited government, and would result in universally-increased freedom, actually implementing them could require a powerful and oppressive dictatorship like Augusto Pinochet's in Chile. Yes, the old, "You can't have a small government without a big government" argument. I've most often seen this deployed against minarchists, so it is interesting to see it here. Maybe you can rephrase that one? >What are some good examples of neoliberalism in practice that you find wholly incompatible with Hayek's views? I'll let you take your pick, but google has some real gems here. https://www.google.com/search?q=neoliberalism+pinochet https://www.google.com/search?q=neoliberalism+pinochet https://mises.org/wire/no-hayek-didnt-support-pinochet-regime https://mises.org/wire/no-hayek-didnt-support-pinochet-regim... >Hayek: "I have certainly never contended that generally authoritarian governments are more likely to secure individual liberty than democratic ones, but rather the contrary." In more general terms, I think you'd find it difficult to square the CIA, military industrial complex backed Pinochet regime with the classical liberalism Hayek is known for. Similarly, the national-socialist influences and fugitives from justice at Colonia Dignidad are out of bounds. Maybe the third-positionists can claim these elements, but you can't stretch that onto classical liberals. The distinction matters and from my side the generalization reads as dishonest. However having this discussion has shed some light on the topic and I'm not convinced that all those who would distort this issue do so with malice.