Continued....

We've done the no or small government method before. It has its own faults (market imperfections, externalization, private corruption) just like the command and control model has its own faults (regulators using slack for personal gain, inefficiencies due to lack of market forces). The different new governance models can sometimes be described as a hybridization of public and private, or a focus on improved communication or collaboration, a decentralization of decision making, or other descriptions, but the real important thing is that it's not a conversation of big government vs. small or no government. It is a lot more complex and nuanced than that.

And all of this also just focuses on the abilities of government to regulate those in its own boarders. There is also the problem created by the globalization of economies. We are now a world economy, we are all tied together. That much can be seen from the market collapse. But the problem is governments can't regulate beyond it's boarders. But some of these new governance methods would be applicable and potentially useful in that global environment (and they do exist).

I understand my post applies mostly to economic type discussions and this is social liberties issue; but the statism or big government accusations often revolve around economic realities; but both social liberties and economic issues are incredibly important to society as a whole.

One final note, as I mentioned at the beginning, I'm not certain about what major sparks personally believes or knows, and when he talks about his ideological beliefs whether he truly believes in relying solely on market forces or if he considers some of the new governance methods I mentioned here as part of the solution moving forward. But often on here the posts (not just his) seem to only scratch the surface and rail on "big government" while that's not even the real discussion. Even the current supposed "big government" doesn't believe in the idea that it has all the answers. The idea that regulators have perfect knowledge, are the foremost experts and will come up with the best solution is one that has long been discarded. That's why these different methods for governance are being employed in situations where they could succeed.

The direction of governance is unclear, the definitions and nomenclature are not settled. The methods are not perfected or certain. But the idea that it's still a dichotomous discussion of big government vs. no or small government is fallacy.

Fly4Fun;1458632 wrote:If they want to reject the general interpretation of the voting patterns of the Court and individual justices, that's fine. But Roberts and the Supreme Court are currently considered to be conservative (usually pretty slightly, but still on the conservative side). That doesn't mean they decide a with whatever is considered to be the "conservative" view of an issue every time, as that's not their job.

IMO the SCOTUS is remarkably balanced in their political ideology. This has not always been the case in their history. The current courts rulings have been IMO fair regarding both ideologies though I disagree with some of them. You said the SCOTUS is considered "conservative" I asked by what standards. You named two people apparently to back that argument up and I cited examples where those two individuals governed liberally. There are conservatives on the court. I disagree that the SCOTUS is "conservative". IMO its perceived "conservative" by some because it does not rule hard left 100% of the time.

Fly4Fun;1458632 wrote:It always is amusing reading this forum though, and this little exchange demonstrates why. But the same reason it is amusing is why I typically don't post here.

The political forum is a far cry from the childish nonsense that goes on other forums. You will never find believer or myself in the basement. I respect your well thought out post. You have valid points. Never understood the fear of the political forum.

Fly4Fun;1458632 wrote: I'm not sure if that's exactly what major sparks believes as I haven't followed his posts with the purpose of understanding his ideological beliefs. But the current discussion that has been evolving revolves around the idea of "new governance."

Government is a necessary evil. Evil only in the sense that it has the power to project its will on its citizens. Government can be good that is why we have it. But power by its vary nature attracts the corrupt. Government power needs to be checked and balanced. Centralizing government may create efficiency for the good of the people but also leaves the door open to centralized corruption.

As the founders envisioned government power should be divided and pitted against itself. Three co-equal branches of the federal government pitted against themselves. Those against the governmental authority of the states. Some powers were given to the central government others left to the states (10th amendment).

We have anti-trust laws that are supposed to keep businesses from getting so big that they would invite the corrupt and the lack of competition would be detrimental to its customers. Why not the same standard for government? I know business is motivated by profits. Do you think politicians are not motivated by power?

There are abuses of power at all levels of governance. History shows us that central power without checks and balances within the government structure descends into the abuse of its citizens at times culminating in violent revolution against the governmental authority.

There was a time when "liberals" had a righteous distrust of government. Modern day "liberals" bow at the alter of big government.

majorspark;1458423 wrote:
Believer used the term "leftist" not "liberal". "Statist" may be more fitting. The term "liberal" has its root in liberty. Hardly a characteristic of a modern day so called "liberals". The founders were liberals. The statists don't monopolize the politcal left. There are right wing statists. Centralized big government has no boundaries.

Don't you mean some of the Founders were classical liberals?

A majority of the early founders supported the creation of a Central Bank. The founders gave the Federal government the monopoly over currency creation in the enumerated powers of Congress outlawing market-based private currency and state created currency. Both of those are anathema to people currently claiming the banner of classical liberalism/minarchism/libertarianism. They for the most part openly embraced Hamilton's American System of Protectionism and Public investment which was also in contrast to the classical liberal position.

This thread is about the SCOTUS trying to fix an overbroad Time, Place and Manner restriction on speech...which are are routinely upheld. In fact, to me, this is an example of our Constitutional system working. The courts knock a regulation down for overbreadth and they try to fix it.

The Founding Fathers on the other hand, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts and you had the Federalists jailing protesters and newsmen for talking shit about George Washington and John Adams. And, they justified this because they didn't want a copy of the French Revolution from Jefferson and his boys.

Tea Partiers are upset about the 501(c)(4) stereotyping and consider that some type of political hit job but imagine if Obama and Congress passed a law outlawing criticism of him and the Democrats in power because they didn't want a repeat of the Arab Spring by the Tea Party and started throwing Mark Levin and co. in jail??? THAT is what the Founding Fathers did...some of the same people that the Tea Party hold in such high regard.

This thread is acting like America as we know it is going to hell in a handbasket because of a SCOTUS TPM regulation when it was the Founding Fathers throwing people in jail for the content of their speech! If that isn't "statism" I don't know what is?

Americans have more freedom and ability to question and challenge their government than they ever have. They also show an impressive ability to show extreme outrage over the grievances that pale in comparison to grievances of years past.

I've read Boatshoes' post a few times, I have no idea what he is talking about.

Manhattan Buckeye;1458885 wrote:I've read Boatshoes' post a few times, I have no idea what he is talking about.

What do I need to clear up for you?

Majorspark broadly claimed the "Founders were liberals" in the classical sense. In fact, quite a lot of them were quite "statist" by the standards of classical liberalism/libertarianism/Tea Partyism. I gave some examples of this; Socialism by means of a Public monopoly over the currency, embrace of the American System/Protectionism/High Tariff, Egregious Content Based Restrictions on Speech, Creation of a Socialist Central Bank.

I then turned it back into the thread topic with regard to Justincredible's assertion "is this America?" He seems quite disgusted by the SCOTUS' time, place and manner restriction on speech. I pointed out how early Americans actually passed much more egregrious infringements on speech and suggested we might imagine what it would be like if Obama and Co. tried to do some of the things that the Federalists did.

The conclusion is that things really aren't that bad and that they are probably better with regard to free speech rights than in the earlier days of our Republic.

I apologize for my seemingly persistent inability to write in a manner that you can understand.

majorspark;1458824 wrote:IMO the SCOTUS is remarkably balanced in their political ideology. This has not always been the case in their history. The current courts rulings have been IMO fair regarding both ideologies though I disagree with some of them. You said the SCOTUS is considered "conservative" I asked by what standards. You named two people apparently to back that argument up and I cited examples where those two individuals governed liberally. There are conservatives on the court. I disagree that the SCOTUS is "conservative". IMO its perceived "conservative" by some because it does not rule hard left 100% of the time.

I agree that it is really balanced and that's easily observed by the number of 5-4 decisions that have been happening and looking at the names on each side. But the general narrative of the court is that it is considered slightly conservative still.

For example, most articles written about the Courts 2012 ruling on Obamacare would speak about how Roberts voted against the other conservative justices that he typically sides with (saying it's surprising,). But that just is anecdotal evidence.

Here's a piece from everyone's favorite statistical analyst Nate Silver:http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/supreme-court-may-be-most-conservative-in-modern-history/

In it he just describes one particular statistical analysis of the voting pattern of the court, and he suggests that it shows the Supreme Court is conservative

majorspark;1458824 wrote:The political forum is a far cry from the childish nonsense that goes on other forums. You will never find believer or myself in the basement. I respect your well thought out post. You have valid points. Never understood the fear of the political forum.

I'm not afraid of the political forum; I just choose not to participate for the most part. I'll chime in from time to time, but generally it is not something that I find enticing and enjoyable.

majorspark;1458824 wrote:Government is a necessary evil. Evil only in the sense that it has the power to project its will on its citizens. Government can be good that is why we have it. But power by its vary nature attracts the corrupt. Government power needs to be checked and balanced. Centralizing government may create efficiency for the good of the people but also leaves the door open to centralized corruption.

As the founders envisioned government power should be divided and pitted against itself. Three co-equal branches of the federal government pitted against themselves. Those against the governmental authority of the states. Some powers were given to the central government others left to the states (10th amendment).

We have anti-trust laws that are supposed to keep businesses from getting so big that they would invite the corrupt and the lack of competition would be detrimental to its customers. Why not the same standard for government? I know business is motivated by profits. Do you think politicians are not motivated by power?

There are abuses of power at all levels of governance. History shows us that central power without checks and balances within the government structure descends into the abuse of its citizens at times culminating in violent revolution against the governmental authority.

There was a time when "liberals" had a righteous distrust of government. Modern day "liberals" bow at the alter of big government.

I agree that government is a necessary evil and your definition of why it is evil.

But as I exhaustively went over in my previous post, the centralized command and control model isn't one that considered to be the answer by anyone, even those currently in power. There have been numerous articles, conferences, books, etc. about what all the different techniques and methods that have been coming about in the past 30 years or so can be considered (I listed a couple in my previous posts). But these better governing principles do try to use use some of the principals you are advocating such as decentralization, or harnessing market principals, collaboration with the stakeholders, flexibility and more open communication.

This last part of your post goes to what I was addressing. No one anymore is trying to say a centralized command and control (big government) is the answer. No one believes that the best experts in a particular field or all the necessary knowledge is with a centralized decision making authority. The notion of a complete top down control of government isn't an accurate depiction of the current state of governance. It is a lot more intricate and varied than that. There are different types of new governance principles being employed for different situations. But there are still situations that do employ the traditional "big government." But it is hard to have a discussion when it always falls back to over simplified rhetoric that doesn't really describe the current situation so it's "answers" are inapplicable.

Fly4Fun;1458901 wrote: No one anymore is trying to say a centralized command and control (big government) is the answer..

I think you need to clarify a bit here. There aren't any mainstream influential marxists anymore but there are plenty of reasonable people who would consider the type of Central Banking operations used to regulate the economies of the world are pretty high on the scale of "central planning", etc. Plenty of people, some of which are on this forum no doubt, would argue that we are way too much centralized control.

While I understood Boat's post, I don't think we should necessarily try to justify a current act by saying it's less worse than a historical act by our government.

Fly4Fun;1458909 wrote:While I understood Boat's post, I don't think we should necessarily try to justify a current act by saying it's less worse than a historical act by our government.

It is one thing to say that, on the merits, it is unjustified for the SCOTUS to regulate speech on its grounds on this manner.

It is another thing to suggest that this is evidence that our country is going to hell in a handbasket when, based on what's happened in the past, it's probably evidence that America has actually improved over time with regard to 1st Amendment issues.

BoatShoes;1458902 wrote:I think you need to clarify a bit here. There aren't any mainstream influential marxists anymore but there are plenty of reasonable people who would consider the type of Central Banking operations used to regulate the economies of the world are pretty high on the scale of "central planning", etc. Plenty of people, some of which are on this forum no doubt, would argue that we are way too much centralized control.

Okay, to say speak in certainties/absolutes is not correct to do. But as you pointed out, the general leading discussion no longer asserts that a complete top down command and control, government knows best, method is the best. Most forms of what is loosely called new governance involve the characteristics I've mentioned previous times.

Even the Fed can be described in that way as the private member banks do get votes for the Board of Directors. That could be seen as improving communication with the private institutes (some of the stakeholders) and very loose means of collaboration. It insures that the quasi-government (since it's no directly answering to any of the normal 3 branches) does work with the industry experts in developing policies.

And while I do say that big government is not the answer, nor does the current discourse suggest it is really the topic, a lot of the same literature I am referencing doesn't completely dismiss the usefulness of an ultimate authority, but the focus is how to modify it beyond that more classical command and control model to make it more efficient and effective.

One of the important aspects of the current discussion though about new governance is a recognition that there is no one size fits all remedy. That's why the topic is defined and discussed with different methods or values, it's about finding the right fit, what principals work in what situations, and working toward a better model with trial and error.

BoatShoes;1458912 wrote:It is one thing to say that, on the merits, it is unjustified for the SCOTUS to regulate speech on its grounds on this manner.

It is another thing to suggest that this is evidence that our country is going to hell in a handbasket when, based on what's happened in the past, it's probably evidence that America has actually improved over time with regard to 1st Amendment issues.

And of course that is supported by the narrative of this story in that the previous law, which was struck down and replaced by a new one that is the topic of this discussion, was 60 years old. So now the law regarding this situation is less restrictive than before.

But it's easier to be outraged when one doesn't know the full story. Courts have traditionally been allowed to have reasonable time place and manner restrictions of speech on their premises as they are qualified as limited public forums.

Pretty sure this isn't a partisan issue but as outsidethebeltway put it....

"What’s being prohibited is protesting on the steps and lawn. That strikes me as a perfectly reasonable security and efficiency measure, not a dictatorial crackdown on free speech or assembly."

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/supreme-court-bans-protests-at-supreme-court-but-not-near-the-supreme-court/