Libertarian Law Prof Debunks Bundy Nonsense, Ed Brayton, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, April 25, 2014

As some of the more militant libertarians, especially the anarcho-capitalists, flock to the support of Cliven Bundy in his standoff with the federal government, most of the libertarian-minded law professors are debunking their absurd claims and pointing out how gloriously wrong those people are. Josh Blackman is one of them.

First, Bundy seems to reject the Constitution’s property clause. (It was a wonderful twist of scheduling fate that I assigned the “Property Clause” in ConLaw the week after the Bundy Ranch standoff. ) In an interview he said that the federal government has “no jurisdiction or authority” on his grazing rights. Under the Property Clause, Congress has the power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” The land at issue was owned by the United States prior to Nevada statehood as a territory. I suspect Bundy will argue that his family has obtained a prescriptive easement on the land, as it has continuously, openly, and (absolutely) hostilely, grazed on the land for 170 years. Though, adverse possession is not permissible against the federal government.

Second, Bundy does not accept the supremacy clause, as he said he has “no contract with the United States government.” To the extent that BLM, pursuant to the Property Clause enacts regulations concerning land the government owns, then yeah, he has a contract with the government. Those are the Supreme Laws of the land.

Piketty, Oligarchy, and Conservative Evasion, Jonathan Chait , New York, April 25, 2014

Every so often, a right-winger billionaire will go on an epic public rant against class warfare, populism, and the depredations of the Democratic soak-the-rich tax agenda. But such rants are noteworthy not only for their hilarious lack of self-awareness and uncomfortable tendency to invoke Adolph Hitler, but for their sheer discordance with the rest of the Republican message. The GOP obviously does not want its public face to be filthy rich men wallowing in self-pity. And what’s more, not many conservative elites even appear comfortable straightforwardly defending the interests of the rich. They greatly prefer to evade the issue, or to attempt a jujitsu maneuver, turning the plutocracy accusation back against liberals, allowing them to cast the Republican Party as the true force for populism. The sudden popularity of Thomas Piketty’s Capital in the Twenty-First Century has again thrust conservatives into the pseudo-populist defensive stance.

What Can Men Do? Shanley, Medium, November 17, 2013

I get asked this a lot.

Sometimes it is less a question than a veiled accusation or criticism. More often, it is revealing of the guilt, insecurity and helplessness men in our industry tend to feel around discussions of the systemic sexism they are the primary beneficiaries of.

So here you go. Here is what you can do so you can stop asking me to do your job for you.

Please remember two things.

1. Men need to work with each other on sexism. It is not okay to lean on the class of people you oppress to solve your system or your discomfort with it.
2. Men need to work within their own communities on sexism. It’s typical of male arrogance in tech to go galavanting into other people’s communities trying to solve their problems, but there’s enough problem right here to go around. Get to work.

Dig Deep: Beyond Lean In, bell hooks, The Feminist Wire, October 28, 2013

Sandberg’s definition of feminism begins and ends with the notion that it’s all about gender equality within the existing social system. From this perspective, the structures of imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy need not be challenged. And she makes it seem that privileged white men will eagerly choose to extend the benefits of corporate capitalism to white women who have the courage to ‘lean in.’ It almost seems as if Sandberg sees women’s lack of perseverance as more the problem than systemic inequality. Sandberg effectively uses her race and class power and privilege to promote a narrow definition of feminism that obscures and undermines visionary feminist concerns.

Contrast her definition of feminism with the one I offered more than twenty years ago in Feminist Theory From Margin To Center and then again in Feminism Is For Everybody. Offering a broader definition of feminism, one that does not conjure up a battle between the sexes (i.e. women against men), I state: “Simply put, feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression.” No matter their standpoint, anyone who advocates feminist politics needs to understand the work does not end with the fight for equality of opportunity within the existing patriarchal structure. We must understand that challenging and dismantling patriarchy is at the core of contemporary feminist struggle – this is essential and necessary if women and men are to be truly liberated from outmoded sexist thinking and actions.

Photo credit: By Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg: Constitutional Convention; derivative work: Bluszczokrzew (Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.