[Publius Valerius]

D. [T]he pure libertarian… can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution…

I can't speak for everyone else, but I would have to say that I take some issue with this. I don't see a democratically-elected republican form of government as a requirement. In fact, I think you can make a strong case for peerage as necessary (or, at least, certainly not antithetical to libertarianism) to protect certain--especially property--rights.

As I noted in my post above, it is at least my opinion that the form of government itself is really not relevant, so long as society (and the government) maintain a commitment to protecting natural and property rights.

[Lucky Dog]

I think you can make a strong case for peerage as necessary (or, at least, certainly not antithetical to libertarianism) to protect certain--especially property--rights.

Peerage is a system of titles of aristocracy, historically used in many monarchical systems of government. The term "peerage" technically refers to a subset of the complete system of titles of nobility, with the precise meaning varying from country to country. -- From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A true libertarian does not recognize any non-merit based distinctions among citizens as all citizens have the same natural rights. Therefore, any distinctions accorded a noble or sovereign would be unacceptable.