Classical Liberal or Libertarian?

If you are interested at all in this blog, please stop reading this post and instead spend the next 30 minutes reading last month's Cato Unbound in which Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi bring their idea of Bleeding Heart Libertarianism to the libertarian body politic.  The BHL project attempts to marry Rawlsian social justice with classical liberal and libertarian thought.  The more I read Zwolinski and Tomasi (whose Free Market Fairness I am currently reading and loving), the more uncomfortable I become with the label libertarian versus "classical liberal."

Although one of the respondents to their Unbound essay quibbles with their version of libertarian history, it is personally convincing that libertarianism, to its detriment, elevates property rights above all other rights as a reaction against property rights being excerpted from modern or high liberal thought.  The further this sinks in, the more skeptically I view hardcore libertarian arguments from those like Rothbard and Nozick.  The reduction of all rights to property rights is absurd.  The classical liberal emphasis on the material betterment of the poor (and society as a whole) rings far more true to me.

Perhaps this is why many libertarians refer to themselves as "small l" libertarians.  They are oriented towards free minds and free markets (to quote Reason's tagline), but they do not subscribe to the abstract and extreme arguments of the libertarian tradition.  So, I suppose I should choose between small l or classical liberal.