Good lords and ladies
On Constitutional prohibitions, the assignment of property rights, and the one (and probably only) good thing to be said for a hereditary aristocracy
As soon as anyone becomes moderately interested in family history, it’s hard to resist the allure of imagining that somewhere up the pedigree is a long-lost claim to aristocracy. It’s such a popular exercise that it’s even possible to purchase a novelty title as a “Lord” or “Lady” (starting at just $45.00!).
■ The reality, of course, is that most people whose families emigrated from somewhere else to America left in no small part because they were expressly not a part of the aristocracy. The wealthy and landed tend to stay behind, while the poor and the strivers have long tended to leave (Mr. Harry Windsor notwithstanding).
■ At any rate, the very notion of hereditary aristocracy ought to ring a sour note in the ears of any good small-r republican: It’s such a treasured idea that all people are born equal that the very Constitution itself says, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
■ Few institutions are entirely without merit, however, and it’s fair to consider what redeeming qualities might come from having a hereditary aristocracy. In the case of the United Kingdom, which is just about to strip its last hereditary nobles of their power in the House of Lords, the question is especially acute. The answer is probably that aristocratic titles create a sense of ownership in both the traditions and the outlook of a national culture.
■ All institutions -- including nations -- need custodians. They need caretakers who stand for the institution for its own sake. America, with our egalitarian social habits, tends not to have those caretakers, or at least not by any sort of assignment. And that may be the one area where the lack of an aristocracy causes a void.
■ Economics has a concept called the Coase theorem, which says (in effect) that if there are outcomes that result from ownership of something and exchanges are reasonably frictionless, then as long as the property rights are assigned clearly enough, the parties involved will find their way to outcomes that will tend to leave everyone as well-off as possible. It matters not who gets assigned the right to the property, but that the line is drawn somewhere so that everyone involved can negotiate towards an outcome that’s as efficient as possible.
■ And that may be the one valid outcome that does any good from having an aristocracy. If it’s clearly someone’s responsibility to speak up for the heritage and the future of the nation, then that “property right” can be assigned, transferred, or otherwise upheld in a way that the public at large knows how to argue about. The absence of these assignments in America explains why we frequently go through cycles of argument over who has the right to speak for the country -- an exercise that often turns political when it really ought to remain strictly cultural.
