Coal Mines are Dark Places...

"There had been, in 1888 or 1889, a case called Holden and Harding, where the Supreme Court held that a limitation on the amount of work week that miners in coal mines could have was in fact justified under the police power as a health and safety measure. Now, some of us may be skeptical about that, but if you think about it in terms of just the physical observation, coal mines are dark places, they are dusty places, they are dangerous places, so you can see why working too long would create real hazards. On the other hand, we don't know a hell of a lot about the means of production in these mines. But you can see--this becomes the benchmark after we create freedom of contract for the justification of state control over the system."

That was from an EconTalk episode with Richard Epstein. Epstein sees a "classical liberal" as a person who:

- judges circumstances on a case-by-case basis, where
- empirical analysis determines whether government or market provision is preferred, but 
- tends to favor less government intervention. 

So despite the voluntary nature of employment contracts, a classical liberal would believe that there should probably be regulations on coal miners' working hours, but not so for the butchers or the bakers. (Note how this differentiates the classical liberal from the modern Libertarian, who defaults to no government intervention -- ever.)

The problem with economics is that the controversies are rarely, if ever, put to bed through empirics. While we like to say that it is an empirical issue, our predispositions (for the individual and society at large) will more often than not decide which way we interpret complex data. In other words, Epstein merely pointed in the direction of the classical liberal's confirmation bias.

I suppose Progressives would have the same definition as Epstein's classical liberals except they tend to favor more government intervention, not less.