Invertonyms abound in government jargon, and they are always intended to disinform you. For example, the injustice of stealing the wealth of those who earned it in order to give it to those who refuse to earn their own is referred to by the government as social "justice." And the government's systematic destruction of the general welfare of the Black community is designated by the invertonym "welfare."
The word "progressive" was introduced into politics by Theodore Roosevelt, who used it to describe such "progress" as the Panama Canal, the government's "trust-busting" intrusions into the private sector, and the institution of a food and drug regulating bureaucracy. But the word progressive, as used by Roosevelt, is an invertonym, and "progressive politics" is an oxymoron.
Politics is, by its very nature, regressive. Its sole objective is a regression to the atavistic social system of feudalism. – a feudalism in which the landed gentry are replaced by politicians and serfs are replaced by the People they pretend to represent.
The very existence of politics is premised on the assumption that the elites have the right to use and abuse the plebian class. Politics did not exist until feudalism was destroyed by 17th Century Liberalism. It was invented by displaced elitists as a counter revolution against the heresy of men like Locke and Rousseau and Jefferson.
Moreover, politics is not only regressive, it is repressive. Alexander Bell's invention of the telephone in 1876 was progressive. The 1910 Mann-Elkins Act, which extended the authority of the Interstate Commerce Commission to the regulation of the telecommunications industry, was repressive. The sole objective of government regulation is to repress innovation and progress, which have always been a threat to feudalistic systems. While the government justifies regulation in the name of promoting "competition," competition is only an invertonym for monopoly – a government monopoly which is imposed to stifle competition fueled innovation.
One of the most recent invertonyms we hear bandied about Washington and its sycophantic minions of the propaganda press corps is internet "neutrality." But what is net neutrality? President Obama explained it this way, "Most Internet providers have treated Internet traffic equally. That's a principle known as "net neutrality" — and it says that an entrepreneur's fledgling company should have the same chance to succeed as established corporations, and that access to a high school student's blog shouldn't be unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money."
Sounds like a laudable objective, right? But just how does President Obama plan to accomplish that goal? By removing control of the internet from the private sector, which invented it and which is continually improving and upgrading it, and ensconcing control in a politically motivated and politically moldable bureaucracy that has not the slightest clue about what it is they've been empowered to regulate.
This is clearly an attempted power grab dressed in invertonyms such as "unfairly" (meaning fairly purchased on the open market), "chance," (meaning government guarantee), and "neutrality" (meaning government control).
Fairly purchased advertising is not "unfair," Mr. Obama. Advertising is the life blood of a free communications system. To advocate its restriction is to admit either that you are ignorant of how the system works or that your intention is the destruction of that freedom.
And chance, Mr. President, is the life blood of entrepreneurism. Without the thrill of risk and the exhilaration of succeeding on your own, there'd be no competition and hence no innovation. A government guarantee of success, therefore, is the kiss of death to innovation.
Furthermore, competition is a natural component of a free market. It cannot be imposed by government or by anyone else, and it cannot be seperated from the market except by regulating (i.e. outlawing) it, which will, of course, ultimately have the desired effect of destroying the market.
Progress can come only from innovation and competition in the private sector. The government can never effect progress because its antecedents of innovation and competition are antithetical to the very fabric of government.
"The consumer is protected from being exploited by one seller by the existence of another seller from whom he can buy and who is eager to sell to him. Alternative sources of supply protect the consumer far more effectively than all the Ralph Naders of the world." – Milton Friedman