"David Hardwick and Leslie Marsh have assembled a contentious collection of independent thinkers on liberalism's identity and prospects. Should liberalism be democratic, classical, ordo, legalistic, culture-based, market-based, or what? The international crew of authors-from Australia, Canada, China and the USA-draw upon the insights of key historic figures from Locke to Montesquieu to Burke to Dewey to Hayek to Rawls (and of course others, given liberalism's rich history), and they leave us with a set of liberalisms both in collision and in overlapping agreement. This book is stimulating reading for those engaged with next-generation liberal thought." -Stephen R. C. Hicks, Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University. This collection redresses the conceptual hubris and illiteracy that has come to obscure the central presuppositions of classical liberalism - that is, the wresting of epistemic independence from overwhelming concentrations of power, monopolies and capricious zealotries, whether they be statist, religious or corporate in character.

"David Hardwick and Leslie Marsh have assembled a contentious collection of independent thinkers on liberalism's identity and prospects. Should liberalism be democratic, classical, ordo, legalistic, culture-based, market-based, or what? The international crew of authors-from Australia, Canada, China and the USA-draw upon the insights of key historic figures from Locke to Montesquieu to Burke to Dewey to Hayek to Rawls (and of course others, given liberalism's rich history), and they leave us with a set of liberalisms both in collision and in overlapping agreement. This book is stimulating reading for those engaged with next-generation liberal thought." -Stephen R. C. Hicks, Professor of Philosophy at Rockford University. This collection redresses the conceptual hubris and illiteracy that has come to obscure the central presuppositions of classical liberalism - that is, the wresting of epistemic independence from overwhelming concentrations of power, monopolies and capricious zealotries, whether they be statist, religious or corporate in character.