As Joe Salerno has noted, one of the principles classical liberalism stressed, in its original context, was the “nationality principle.” So therefore BM wonders [italics original]: “can the term “classical liberalism,” or even its more purified successor “libertarianism,” be defined (or ever realized) without the concept of a “nationality principle.”?”
Here is what I was trying to say about how liberalism was eventually purified by libertarianism. I think it helpful to think of the nationality principle as part of the definition of liberalism; but libertarianism stripped that nationality principle from its own definition. That’s why I brought in Rothbard’s interaction with Frank Meyer and stated that liberalism was “thicker” than libertarianism which, as a result of Rothbard’s contributions, was more narrow.
Rothbard is not including the requirement of a “nationality principle” in the definition of libertarianism, yet his admonition must mean something; he makes it for some purpose. Why would he advise contemporary libertarians on this issue unless it mattered to the benefit of libertarianism?
Of course it means something. The nationality principle is still important, vital, for a thriving body of political insight. This doesn’t mean it is part of the definition of libertarianism. But this is not bad or deficient. It makes things clearer. Strategy is distinct from the doctrine itself. Look at his phrase in the italics in the second paragraph: “be defined (or ever realized).” These are two different things. Being crystal clear on what something is does not take away from how to implement it or the conditions which make its “application possible.”
I must not be interpreted, ever, to be saying that my rejecting non-NAP principles as part of the definition constitutes my considering them irrelevant and unimportant to libertarianism’s application. This is, or should be, quite clearly also Murray Rothbard’s position.
As for BM’s final paragraph, this will have to be addressed in a future essay. After all, I did not offer a definition of the intellectual contributions I think applicable to the issue, nor did I explain how to connect them to the medieval model. Thus, there is nothing yet to defend.
I hope the reader and Bionic Mosquito understand: I don’t really see any disagreement with what Bionic has written. I hope he realizes we are on the same page. I formulate the problem as above in my attempt to unravel these issues.