Gabriel Noah Brahm Jr. wrote an interesting examination of what he calls "the post-left," or, more generally, "the anti-Western left." The essay is full of twists and turns and probably isn't for everyone, but in my experience its at least a fair assessment of a certain trend in modern left-wing thinking.

One fascinating aspect of Brahm's analysis of the left is how well it coheres with the diagnosis of the left often made by those who call themselves Objectivists.

According to Brahm, the anti-Western left can be characterized by the following features, along with my synopsis of Brahm's explanation of each (hence, any errors are mine, not is. I highly suggest people check out the original piece):

1.  Inverted Exceptionism: that is, the idea that the United States is the root of all evil in the world.

2.  Post-Zionism: Israel is also the source of much evil; its right to exist is severely questioned.

3.  Third Worldism: "The wretched of the world...are not just unlucky but morally superior to the earth's beneficiaries." Everyone from Hugo Chavez to Osama bin Laden can be lionized as a heroic warrior fighting against the evil Americans.

4.  Cultural Revolution: Redeeming the world means everything has to go, especially bourgeois culture and its corresponding moral constraints.

5.  Totalitarian Ideology: This is complicated. In the absence of the patchwork of moral constraints that have evolved through the invisible hand, the post-left wants to substitute a comprehensive ideology that explains and rationalizes any phenomenon in terms of "the same demons [and] the same victims." E.g. "Is something wrong with the world? It must be those damn Americans again!"

6.  Islamism: Islamism appeared as the perfect synthesis of all of the above points. It's anti-American, anti-Zionist, originates from the parts of the world the left tends to admire, aims to overthrow petty bourgeois morality in exchange for a comprehensive ideology, and provides a totalizing explanation for all the injustice in the world.

Some on the left refuse to take Brahm's rebuke lying down. On his blog, Dr. Dawg provides an extended critique of Brahm's thesis.

As for me, I'm not going to generalize. But I've spent enough time on left-wing message boards to realize that Brahm's description is not entirely inaccurate of a certain subset of the left (or those who describe themselves as on the left, anyway.)

I've also known leftists, especially in the United States, who do not celebrate Chavez and Bin Laden, and who do not think America is the source of all evil in the world. Dissent Magazine provides excellent examples of leftists of this type. So it would be wrong to take Brahm's thesis and apply it too broadly -- something I doubt he would be comfortable with, anyway.

Obama’s childhood school registration lists him as being a Moslem and an Indonesian citizen. Given the origins of this picture and how it meshes with our understanding of Obama’s life, I have no reason to doubt that it is authentic.

No country has, as of yet, recognized the independence of the Republic of Lakotah. Nevertheless, Russel Means--self-declared leader of the Republic, libertarian, and former movie star--continues to agitate for legal recognition of independence.

Their latest move is to fish. But not just to fish, to fish without permission. From their press release:

"In the tradition of Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Russell Means, the Chief Facilitator of the Republic of Lakotah, is organizing a group of Lakotah Indians to enter Sheridan Lake Recreation Area near Rapid City, South Dakota, refuse to pay the admission fee, and fish without paying the license fee. Means claims that Lakotah retained the right to fish and pass in the 1851 Fort Laramie Treaty territory and that those rights continue today and backed by Article VI of the Constitution of the united states of America."

Letter of intent to fish sent to Larry Long, the Attorney General of South Dakota, on August 12 2008 after the break.

My synopsis? I agree with NBC's Chuck Todd. Obama was trying to have a conversation with the pastor. That's probably what I'd end up doing, too, were I in his place. But McCain was speaking for the audience, both in the church and on television. Politically, that's the smart move, which is why I'd probably make a terrible politician.

Predictably, leftists are simultaneously praising Obama's performance and bemoaning the fact that -- in their view, anyway -- Americans are too stupid to appreciate the thoughtfulness of his responses. Or maybe they're just too bitter to understand, you know?

Provided the teachers take crisis management and hostile situations courses, get a concealed carry license, and be authorized by the district, they'll be able to take a gun to school to defend themselves and their students should there ever be a need for it.

Said Superintendent David Thweatt: "When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, that's when all of these shootings started. Why would you put it out there that a group of people can't defend themselves? That's like saying 'sic 'em' to a dog."

This is the first school in the U.S. to allow guns. In Utah, meanwhile, college students can come to school packing heat, also to protect themselves against school shootings, or other dangerous situations.

"If government can't protect you, you should have the right to protect yourself," said Republican state Senator Michael Waddoups.

(Click for full-size image.)

Right...?

Original link is here.

We know that the state protects our rights, but it also imposes responsibilities on us that include paying taxes, obeying stupid laws, and sometimes even military service. It's helpful to think of the relationship between citizen and state as a kind of contract, with the state doing X for us in exchange for us doing Y for it.

I think that, at least in the ideal world, people should be able to renegotiate their relationship with the state, giving up certain rights in exchange for being released from at least some of the obligations the state imposes on us. At the extreme, I envisage multi-tier citizenship. Full citizens get a full slate of rights -- including the right to vote and to hold public office -- but also a full slate of responsibilities, perhaps up to and including the responsibility to serve in the military. On lower tiers, citizens give up certain rights (like the right to vote) but also face fewer obligations. For example, by giving up the right to vote, you might get a lower tax rate than those who are full citizens and who retain that right.

Obviously, the state has no incentive to renegotiate the contract with its citizens in this way. However, morally speaking, that doesn't let the state off the hook. Presumably, in liberal societies, free choice is highly valued. However, most of us have not actively consented to our current arrangement with the government. We stay because the option of leaving is unattractive, or simply because we haven't given the matter much thought. By giving people other options, the state could increase the role of actual consent and also increase the degree of connection people feel toward the government.

The idea is that the less you feel like your relationship with the government has been forced on you, and the more you feel it was the product of free and informed choice, the more likely it is that you will feel committed to the state.  And, indeed, if a person's relationship with the state really is the product of genuine consent, then he has a greater obligation to fulfill the terms of that relationship than he might otherwise.

Hence, the title of this post: How much is your right to vote worth to you? For myself, the answer is: not very much. If it meant I could be permanently released from having to pay the GST, or any other federal sales tax, I would gladly forfeit my right to vote. If I could get exemptions from certain federal laws, I would also give up that right.

I would not give up the right to free expression, freedom of association, or any other basic, non-political rights, of course. But there are certain rights we hold as citizens of Canada/the U.S./etc (and not simply as human beings) that are pretty much worthless to me. These are the rights I would be willing to jettison if it meant I could keep a greater portion of my income.

How about you? How much is your right to vote worth? What other rights would you be willing to give up in exchange for other benefits?