"Wilhelm Roepke." Now there's a name I'm happy to see. (Not that there's anything wrong with the others, but Roepke seems to be all but forgotten.)

No, not really libertarians. Traditional conservatives would probably be the best term. Russell Kirk - or Kirkian - probably represents the ethos of the site. There is a strong focus on literature, religion, and culture. As might be expected, most of the contributors share with what Americans call libertarians a belief in the clear limits of government, though with a far stronger decentralist and localist sensibility than you find, in general, amongst libertarians.

Etzelnik wrote:

Yeah, I meant libertarians in the sense of believing in a pretty much maximally limited government[.]

Roepke comes closest in that regard, I think. He's usually associated with the Austrian School of economics, but he allowed for some government intervention to ameliorate extremes of poverty and provide a social safety net, and he insisted that the "market" had to be embedded in a fairly conservative social order. His "ordoliberalism" is, for whatever it's worth, usually thought to be fairly closely aligned with Catholic social teaching. (He'd probably have gotten along with Meir Tamari as well.)

The writers featured don't tend to accept the usual libertarian philosophy of uncompromising individualism and emphasis on liberty above all else you find amongst libertarians and many classical liberals. Kirk for example attacked libertarians as what he called chirping sectaries, and Robert Nisbet, too, made an explicit distinction between (classical) conservatives and libertarians. Kirk was involved in a famous controversy with Frank Meyer about the role of the state and society in moral life, in which Kirk defended some role (though a limited one for the state, especially central state) for these against Meyer's strong individualism about moral development. However, the writers in question do share a strong belief in the limits of government and in the importance of indiviual choice and responsibility (though not to the same extreme) with libertarians.

I would add to Scott's comments on Roepke that Roepke is also set apart from the more orthodox Austrians in his strong appreciation of the role of society, culture, and religion has underpinning any healthy economy (Hayek too came to a not entirely dismissilar opinion, but in a somewhat different way). Roepke even has a respect for the human scale and community that is rarely central to the Austrian school. I think an anecdote he related to Kirk shows this well. Roepke recalled a walk he and Ludwig Von Mises had around Geneva. At one point they observed the communal allotments that had been set up during the war to keep the city well fed, and which had continued in use after the war because the citizens had very much taken to them. Mises remarked that this was an inefficient way to produce food (which isn't, incidentally, necessarily true - there is evidence that intensive, small farming and market gardening is more efficient per acre, though not perhaps per man hour, than extensive large-scale agriculture), to which Roepke retorted that it was a very efficient way to produce happiness.