See the discussion at this post.
And when people refer to Adam Smith and reference "liberalism" they are talking about classical liberalism, not the narrower modern American liberalism.
You can disagree with my title if you really want to (I think that's crazy). But it's extremely disappointing to me that in the comment section of that post the point I was making wasn't just one the other commenters disagreed with - it was so foreign to them that they actually thought I was making an argument about modern American liberalism when I used the word "liberalism".
They didn't think I could possibly be arguing that Smithian liberalism is not exhausted in modern libertarianism.
Very disheartening to see.