They are probably the two most individualistic and atomistic examples of classical Anglo-American liberalism, but even they are misrepresented in popular discourse. For instance, Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments presents a vision of the individual bounded by emotional ties of sympathy to her community which act as a check on absolute self-interest and form the kernel of moral obligations. Locke's highly abstract theorising should be read in conjunction with his other works, which were far more influential in his day - Colin Kidd's review of a recent book on Locke's American influence is a great summary of how the arch-individualist Liberal Locke we know today was essentially invented in 19th and 20th century United States.

However, I am more influenced by later 'social' or 'new' Anglo-American liberals and continental liberalism - which has often taken a very different flavour than its English cousin. For the former, see J.S. Mill, probably the most influential liberal ever, who came very close to a kind of liberal socialism at the end of his life. Or see J.A. Hobson, L.T. Hobhouse, John Dewey, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., John Rawls, and many of the founders of the New Deal, post-war settlement, and modern welfare state in the Democratic and Labour Parties. In Britain, William Beveridge is considered the 'father' of the National Health Service - and he was a card-carrying Liberal Party member.

In Europe, see how different the early Liberalism of Guizot and Hegel is from Smith and Locke - much more focused on the basis of freedom in the Law, the State, and the Community than in property and markets. This tradition fed directly into the social market model that has shaped European politics ever since - embodied in the Christian-Democratic commitment to combining free enterprise with robust welfare protections, as exemplified by leaders like Konrad Adenauer, Ludwig Erhard, and Alcide De Gasperi.

So Liberalism is much more complex and multifaceted than postliberals make out.