 Among Austro-Libertarians online, I've noticed three personality types, based on three archetypes or muses in Austrian history and tradition – Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek and Murray Rothbard. These three types generally follow the styles and approaches of these great thinkers, however different they might be. Let's examine the prevailing models and see which one you might fall into. Ludwig von Mises, 1881 to 1973 He was a gentleman of the old school, born into pre-war Europe, a brilliant student in every area with courtly manners that he retained until his death. He faced immense trials in life – two wars, economic depression, two migrations and relentless professional upheaval – and yet never lost his foundational commitment to reasoned, calm and relentless argument as the right approach to changing society. Even when he was witness to amazing banking scams, he resisted naming names to focus only on the facts and logic. His dedication to truth as he saw it was intransigent from the moment he read Menger's principles until his death. His style was firm, dedicated and forceful, but always of the old world. He also retained his commitment to 19th-century style liberalism, despite the totalitarian trends of the 20th century and despite the growing radicalism of his own later students. His method was systematic argument in the form of large treatises, in which logic was the engine, and his system of thought was revealed book by book over the course of his lifetime. He believed that the ideas that people hold were ultimately more powerful than their personal interests. I think of him as the pure intellectual, full of discipline and rigor, but perhaps a bit impersonal. The old world ways of burying the personality for the sake of science prevailed in his practice. And this was true to the point that when Guido Holesman was writing the biography, he became amazed at how little documentation he found on any personal issues. He lived the purest life of the mind, Guido suggests. Friedrich Hayek, 1899-1992 Hayek was a colleague of Mises, who adopted a different style and approach, first as a teacher faithful to the master in Austria, and then later in London as the populariser and systematiser of Mises' business cycle theory in London. His battles with the Keynesians and the Fabians, however, imparted to him a strong sense of the importance of presentation in the War of Ideas. He was temperamentally disposed to seeing his opponent's point of view. He crafted his message in a way that was not merely true, but also, in his view, convincing. He was not a system-builder, so much as a curious and brilliant scholar who took on topics one at a time throughout a long life, a man whose positions on issues evolved in unpredictable ways. He was a dedicated proponent of the gold standard, who later, regrettably, suggested that some re-inflation after a crisis might be necessary, and wisely, later came to the radical defence of an immediate end to all central banking. He penned compromises with the welfare state in one book, and later argued the extreme view that no forms of intervention can improve on the natural evolution of the social order. He spoke about the common law and the merit of evolved tradition on the one hand, and in other writings took a strictly libertarian view about property and the state. Then, just when you think that Hayek was a bit of a softie, you find an old interview with him on national television holding a hard line on the topics of inflation and unemployment. Part of what makes Hayek interesting is precisely this sense of struggle that you get in his writings, the sense that he is not presenting a finished package, but working through topics in light of his scholarly understanding, as led by evidence and reflection. In this way, he leaves some very interesting surprises. Of all the Austrians, he was strongest against intellectual property, and before Rothbard, he might have been the most sympathetic to the idea of a stateless society as a viable option. He never stopped learning, and never stopped in his intellectual struggle. Murray Rothbard, 1926 to 1995 Rothbard was a system builder of a different sort, but more open, more enthusiastic and spirited, a researcher whose theoretical apparatus seems to have been largely in place from the time he put pen to paper, and certainly by the time he finished his large treatise on economic theory. He took his economics from Mises and his libertarianism from Chodorov and the old American liberals, and knitted it all into a dazzling system of thought. He had this remarkable capacity for teasing out the best from the thoughts of all ages, devouring books like snacks, and putting what he found into a model that applies in our times and all times. The resulting outlook provided the perfect tableau for historical studies, and here, in my view, is where Rothbard's work really takes flight. There were no taboos, no unthinkable thoughts, no unspeakable phrases, no preconceptions, no sacred cows. He was a discoverer whose books take the reader through wild rides of villains and heroes, frauds and truth-speakers, tragic victims, and triumphant struggles. Even the longest-dead characters in history were still alive in Rothbard's mind. As for his rhetorical style, it was pure fire. Progress meant breaking the model. He was committed to science, but he was also a bullion in a way that is uncharacteristic of great scholars. Fun doesn't quite describe it. Just his presence in a room made the entire event entertaining for everyone. He was quick to laugh, and he did so often and uproariously, and the juxtaposition between radical theory and outrageous fun was irresistible. Fighting the enemies of liberty for him was a gallant and thrilling adventure, and fighting for liberty was pure joy. He had a way of regarding every moment of life as something of historic importance. He could turn a drab academic meeting into a memorable occasion, writing about it later the same way that others might write about wars and revolutions. This is far from Hayek, far from Mises, but completely captivating and thereby essential to the Rothbardian way. Three in one. So there we have it, the three tendencies of the Austro-libertarians I've seen online. We might sum up the dominant traits as reasoned, reflective and radical. That's not to say that each of these three thinkers did not embody all of these traits. We are speaking here of large tendencies stretching over three long lives about dominant characteristics that one might take from each thinker. Nor is it the case that people working within this tradition must always fall into a single category. Some days we feel as radical as Rothbard, others as reasoned and cool as Mises, and others as speculative and searching as Hayek. Sometimes it depends on whom we have most recently read. Great thinkers tend to have this effect on the world, transferring not only their ideas, but also their temperaments to those who are influenced by them.