 Classical liberalism, liberalism, libertarianism are all forms of political philosophies. They're questions about what the political legal order should do, okay? That's what they're about. Liberalism is not a metaphysics, it's not a worldview, it's not an ethics, etc, etc, etc. There may be all sorts of accounts of how liberalism came up, the origins of liberalism, etc, etc. But the interesting question is how do you justify, how do you defend that? And there are all sorts of resources that one can appeal to. There's a social contract theory, there's a Kantian tradition, the particular theory or approach that I'm interested in is a neo-Aristotelian one. Not that I'm contending that Aristotle was a libertarian. Indeed, he was a part of the statecraft, his soulcraft point of view. But there are insights in a neo-Aristotelian view about the nature of the good life and the importance of self-direction that help us understand why the state can't be the legislator of morality. Well, it would be Aristotelian in the sense that the account of the good life is sufficiently individuated and unique, that you can't just generalize from what the good life is to laws for everybody. And so, but that account of the good life is Aristotelian, but it gives rise to the problem of integrated political diversity. How do we solve that? And that requires a solution that looks at self-protecting the possibility of self-direction. And that's what's interested. There's a neo-Aristotelian basis for a problem that requires a classical liberal or libertarian solution.