Is there a practical difference between classical economics and Austrian School?

[Murica!]

I'm by no means an expert, but yes to put it simply. Austrian Economists, while certainly descendants of Neo-Classical and Classical economics break with far too much to be considered the same. For an example I'm somewhat better versed in, subjective value as opposed to many classical economists subscribing to some form of the Labor Theory of Value.

[Murica!]

I generally find the "good" Austrians(namely Rothbard, Mises and Hayek) as at least interesting, anyone more recent is... junk.

The main problems I see with the Austrian school are it's absolute defense of Private Property as the basis of free exchange and it's refusal to disconnect modern, statist economics with what they say ought to be. That is, seeing Keynesian economics as totally incorrect rather than understanding it's basis within the State and hence a necessary aspect(of State) economics.

Austrians also have a very genuinely worrisome tendency of willing to let poor people die right now, seemingly only to spite the State. My problem with this is not the fierce idealism in this regard, but it's seemingly contradictory stance with both seeing economics as human interaction and also totally disregarding humans.

Feel free to ask for clarification if anything that I said doesn't make sense, as I'm not a particularly great writer.