114 MOSES AND PHARAOH wanted limited civil^- government and a free market economy. But there are few strict defenders of the old faith today.  Mises  and Hayek have few followers. Their intellectual heirs are either Christians or outright anarchists. Neither group (a holistic noun) accepts the view- point of nineteenth-century classical liberalism.  14 Christians base their views on the Bible, and the anarchists want no civil government — certainly not one which is supported by compulsory taxation. The  empirical  or  “positive  economics”  of  the  Chicago  School defends the limited-government viewpoint. These scholars do not appeal to hypothetically universal rights of man that are based on natural law. They explain economics strictly in terms of economic self-interest, and they use scientific tools of ‘empirical ,“ value-free economic analysis, especially mathematics, which implies some sort of holism (economic aggregates).  Mises  categorically rejected such holism as a valid tool for understanding human action. Therefore, the old classical liberalism, with its strict commitment to methodo- logical individualism, is today a shadow of its former moral self. Conclusion The Pharaoh’s court magicians warned him. They told him that he was facing God almighty. He did not accept their evaluation, or at least he chose to challenge the God of Moses anyway. Did this protect the families of the magicians? Did they avoid the plagues? Did they escape the death of their firstborn? Not without the blood on ,the   doorposts.   Not  without  an  outward  covenantal  sign in- dicating that they had placed themselves under the sovereignty of 14. It is one of the ironies of recent history that the two main groups that continue to read and quote Mises both reject his utilitarianism. The  anarcho-capitalists,  led by Rothbard, are defenders of natural law theory, and they explicitly reject utilitarianism as a legitimate foundation of social and economic theory: Rothbard, For a New Lib@y, p. 16. They are anarchists, and Mises explicitly rejected anar- chism. He even said that a military draft is sometimes legitimate: “He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all.”  Human Action,  p. 282. The anarcho-capitalists  seldom go into print against  Mises by name, since they are self- professed followers of Mises and Austrian economic theory, but they have abandoned much of his epistemology (he was a self-conscious Kantian dualist, as well as a utilitarian) and his philosophy of limited (rather than zero) civil government. The other group that uses Mises’ economic arguments is the Christian Reconstruction movement, whose members reject his humanism -agnosticism and his methodologi- cal individualism. There are virtually no strict followers of Mises — Kantians, utilitarians, non-anarchists — under 60 years of age who are still writing in the early 1980’s .