[Publius Valerius]

As I said, I have no problem with peerage, especially as exists in the old House of Lords. They are bound by law (as opposed to a morarch, who is bound only by natural law) and have no special rights other than to sit in the House of Lords. I think such a system could very well be important to the protection of rights.

Even if you take issue with peerage, you can do like our founders did and tweak the concept and just call it something different. We have the Senate instead of the House of Lords, but the Senate was all but peerage. The principle, though--a branch of government made up of those who are wealthy and powerful--is important.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the federal government began to tremendously expand its powers (and consequently, lessening individual rights) around the time we amended the Constitution to allow for direct election of Senators.

[Lucky Dog]

As I said, I have no problem with peerage, especially as exists in the old House of Lords.

Can anyone sit in the House of Lords or only those to whom titles have been arbitrarily given? If the answer is that the entry is restricted on anything other than merit, then a true libertarian could not support it.

They are bound by law … and have no special rights other than to sit in the House of Lords.

As I recall from my stay in Great Britain, the House of Lords retains some governmental privileges (admittedly small and relatively inconsequential). However, even the smallest of not-merit based privilege or authority is a violation of the principle of equality before the law.

I think such a system could very well be important to the protection of rights.

I must disagree.

Even if you take issue with peerage, you can do like our founders did and tweak the concept and just call it something different. We have the Senate instead of the House of Lords, but the Senate was all but peerage. The principle, though--a branch of government made up of those who are wealthy and powerful--is important.

The original selection of senators was, in fact, by the state legislatures. Therefore, senators were still indirectly responsible to voters as they elected the state legislatures. How wealthy and powerful individuals were was not a direct qualifier.

I don't think it's any coincidence that the federal government began to tremendously expand its powers (and consequently, lessening individual rights) around the time we amended the Constitution to allow for direct election of Senators.

The coincidence may exist temporally. However, to attribute any supposed expansion of federal power to directly elected senators is more than a stretch.