Hans-Hermann Hoppe votes for Mises.
I could go on and on, citing Hayek’s muddled and contradictory definitions of freedom and coercion, but that shall suffice to make my point. I am simply asking: what socialist and what green could have any difficulties with all this? Following Hayek, they can all proudly call themselves liberals.
In distinct contrast, how refreshingly clear — and very different — is Mises! For him, the definition of liberalism can be condensed into a single term: private property. The state, for Mises, is legalized force, and its only function is to defend life and property by beating antisocial elements into submission. As for the rest, government is “the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisonment. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.”
Most of us, can hardly differentiate between the two as history of economic thought has never been taught. Mises would not even be known to most as he was not given the prize. Hayek is far far popular that Mises.
It is not about which school you come from. It is knowing what each school and within each school the key actors have to say. This helps understanding where the key ideas are coming from and where they matter and where they do not.
All this reading (of whichever school) is really fascinating. The kind of debates and arguments help one get so many perspectives. It is a pity that most economics students of today have no idea about any of these issues.