to clarify a point.

he denies the point, but dawkins' central theory is essentially the same as kropotkin's. so, he calls himself a liberal - and in that sense, you should take dawkins as the archetype of liberalism. he is in a lot of ways the most pristine representation of liberalism, for better or worse, that has lived in any living person's lifetime; if there is a more perfect liberal since wwII, i don't know of him or her.

but, i like to say that he's a bit of a liberal in a hurry, isn't he?

and, his basic theory is actually literal anarchism.

this is why i go back to dawkins so frequently - he might not like the thought, but he is going to be one of the most important anarchist thinkers, in the long run, on par with the kropotkins and the bakunins, and operating as a kind of a bridge between chomsky and the generalized punk movement (not just the music, the meta punk moment, which is actually still winding down and has no obvious replacement, yet).

so, when i cite dawkins, i cite him in the broadest sense of liberalism, yes. but i actually cite him as an anarchist, first and foremost.