We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Perusing a book on the history of statute law the other day, I was struck by how many of the issues Progressives of today rail against were set in place in statute, often in excess of the underlying common law, during the Progressive period of the 19th and early 20th century.
Most of the social law battles we have today would not be going on if if weren't for the Progressives of the 19th century making private practices illegal by statute.
Such as abortion was not illegal until the mid-19th century although common law did discern between injuring the fetus before and after the quickening (baby moving).
Homosexuality was not a legal matter until the late 19th century
Laws limiting grown, full-capacity women from contracting their labor with the full liberty as men could came to the fore. Of course, then the laws started denying men to the full property rights and liberty of their labor.
For instance, it is a primary principle that an English free man of full age, under no disability, may control his person and his personal activities. He can work six, or four, or eight, or ten, or twelve, or twenty-four, or no hours a day if he choose, and any attempt to control him is impossible under the simplest principle of Anglo-Saxon liberty.
Yet there is possibly a majority of the members of the labor unions who would wish to control him in this particular today; and will take for an example that under the police power the state has been permitted to control him in matters affecting the public health or safety, as, for instance, in the running of railway trains, or, in Utah, in labor in the mines. But freedom of contract in this connection results generally from personal liberty itself; although it results also from the right to property; that is to say, a man's wages (or his trade, for matter of that) is his property, and the right of property is of no practical use if you cannot have the right to make contracts concerning it.
The only matter more important doubtless in the laborer's eye than the length of time he shall work is the amount of wages he shall receive. Now we may say at the start that in the English-speaking world there has been practically no attempt to regulate the amount of wages. We found such legislation in medieval England, and we also found that it was abandoned with general consent. But of late years in these socialistic days (using again socialistic in its proper sense of that which controls personal liberty for the interest of the community or state) it is surprisingly showing its head once more.
You can have regulation of the hours of labor of a woman of full age in general employments, by court decision, in three States (Massachusetts, Oregon, and Illinois), … but the Oregon case, decided both by the State Supreme Court and by the Federal Court in so far as the Fourteenth Amendment was concerned, after most careful and thorough discussion and reasoning, reasserted the principle that a woman is the ward of the state, and therefore does not have the full liberty of contract allowed to a man. Whether this decision will or will not be pleasing to the leaders of feminist thought is a matter of considerable interest.
--Popular Law-making: A Study of the Origin, History, and Present Tendencies of Law-making by Statute, Frederic Jesup Stimson (1910)
there's nothing magical or sacred about common law. in the USofA, common law exists only the the extent congress hasn't legislated. this is even more true for state law.
Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz
Very interesting piece of history worth knowing about.
No doubt they were in over their heads, but these reformers often overlooked the basic principles of Christian ethics, in order to establish powerful institutions. Far more at play here than the Christian charity and altruism the author indicates.