Law professor and Center for Progressive Reform member scholar David Driesen has written a provocative paper comparing the positions of reg "reform" advocates with the anti-government attitudes of the architects of the Lochner era jurisprudence. Driesen's analysis finds some striking similarities between the two. Both contemporary advocates of reg reform and their Lochner era counterparts "cost-benefit analysis over legislative value choices. Their skepticism toward redistributive legislation reflects shared beliefs that regulation often proves counterproductive in terms of its own objectives, fails demanding tests for rationality, and violates the natural order." Driesen concludes, "This parallelism raises fresh questions about claims of neutrality and heightened rationality that serve as important justifications modern regulatory reform." Click here for David M. Driesen, "Regulatory Reform: The New Lochnerism?"