Maybe there could be something valuable in there. If you want to draw attention to it, say it clearly and point out whatever misconceptions, even if briefly, so that people don’t mistake your linking with endorsement.

For classical liberalism all this is turned on the head, where self-organization and re-localisation is the very core! I want to quota Charles Siegel:

– Classical liberalism believed in positive freedom, the right of people to manage their own affairs and to govern themselves.

– Victorian liberalism had two aspects. One of these two is well known: laissez-faire liberalism accommodated the industrial economy by inventing the ideal of negative freedom, the notion that freedom is nothing more than absence of government control. But there was also a more idealistic aspect of Victorian liberalism, which grew out of classical liberalism but which is largely forgotten today.

– Modernist liberalism kept the laissez-faire idea of negative freedom but applied it to a narrow realm of personal behavior. It expected centralized organizations to make important decisions, so it believed that individuals could only have personal freedom.

Laissez-faire and modernist liberalism redefined freedom as negative in order to accommodate economic growth. To revitalize the liberal tradition for our time, we need to revive the ideal of positive freedom.

Charles Siegel’s book on Classical Liberalism is published as a free e-book here: http://www.preservenet.com/classicalliberalism/index.html

Conclusion: We cannot fork modernist liberalism, we need to replace it with classical liberalism.