Comments on: Reaping the Whirlwind of Progressivism, Part I

By: William Hendricks

William Hendricks — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 05:09:10 +0000

I’m glad this topic is being discussed. Tragically, to question the wisdom behind the Progressive Era is considered blasphemy for many Americans. One disturbing affect of the Progressive Era is the minimum hour/wage laws that swept America during the dawn of the 20th century. For the longest time, the Supreme Court struck these laws down as violations of individual liberty (“Freedom of Contract”), only to reverse this precedent in Muller v. Oregon (1908). The proponent’s argument existed upon ‘scientific evidence’ later proven to be false.

Unfortunately, the States and the Federal government wasted no time in passing laws against liberty, protected by false science. This isn’t as disturbing as the fact once understood the science was untrue, neither the S. Court, the States, nor the Federal government ever challenged or reversed laws against freedom of contract.

By: Zach Bibeault

Zach Bibeault — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:34:05 +0000

I’m looking forward to this series. The progressives are tiresome.

By: Sean Ambroise

Sean Ambroise — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 16:22:12 +0000

Mr. Swalve

Human endeavor isn’t perfect? No one says it is… we don’t go around valuing “endeavors” as good or bad.

Regulations arise from a government that wants to regulate, and yes, regulation (or as you arbitrarily term it, progress) is the antithesis of liberty.

It’s an old song. You want clean water? Buy it, or create it. Anything you can’t make with your own two hands must come from someone who spent his or her labor creating it. Clean water? Comes from someone else. Thus, you have no right to “regulate” their activities and their productivity for your own ends. You are forced to cooperate. That is why Ludwig von Mises came very near to naming his most famous book “Social Cooperation” rather than “Human Action”.

You use a faulty example when you mention rivers. If every person owns their fair share of the river, it is illegal to pollute the entire river, because that is damaging another person’s property… sorry pal, that’s about as free market as you get.

Most instances of regulation are instead violations of one person’s right to use or exchange his own property as he sees fit, regardless of the fact that it is an exchange between two individuals who consent and benefit from the transaction.

By: Daniel Shapiro

Daniel Shapiro — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:05:38 +0000

Here’s an insight into so-called “progressives” who advocate coercive so-called political state “solutions”. Every single one of them I’ve ever spoken and where I questioned the necessity of the use of political force has admited that they believe that man is fundamentally evil and corrupt. Their dim view of humanity is what justifiesv parental state intervention. Unfortunately they do not recognize that this premise regarding human nature is self-fulfilling.

By: Dick Swalve

Dick Swalve — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 01:13:24 +0000

“Our current standard of living is considerably lower than it would have been had the Progressives not taken power.”

Got a cite for that, chief?

Human endeavor is not perfect, no matter who you work for or pray to. Yes, that means regulation can often go too far. But regulation doesn’t arise in a vacuum. It stems from someone abusing “the common” in some way or another. I like to drink clean water. We are all downstream from someone.

Progress is not the antithesis of liberty.

By: Edward Krueger

Edward Krueger — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 23:31:41 +0000

Using lifeguarding as a metaphor for governing: For libertarians there would be no lifeguard if you didn’t want one –we assume people can swim or well get help if they can’t. A minimal statist would be a regular lifeguard. A progressive lifeguard would be searching peoples shoes for hidden wallets.

By: Jacob Steelman

Jacob Steelman — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 21:16:27 +0000

Gabriel Kolko’s Triumph of Conservatism is a great examination of progressivism by a leftist who was surprised by what his research showed – the regulated were seeking the regulation imposed by the progressives.

By: Iván

Iván — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 14:46:36 +0000

Kant established that “good” was in intentions, not in the search for profit. We accepted that government with “good intentions” should rule. The result is shameful.
What if we accepted “horrible and selfish” intentions. I’m pretty sure we might get a better outcome.