I was recently asked why progressive policies violate the US Constitution.
The answer is because they infringe on negative rights.
A negative right to x is a right to do x to the extent that a holder of the right to x does not violate other peoples'negative rights. It is as simple as that.
It is quite logical and non-contradictory. I can smoke pot, bear a gun, run naked in the street, spend billions on yaughts or other eccentricities and not violate any of your negative rights.
Remember that the US Constitution says that these rights are unalienable.
The only complex issue is property since the US Constitution does not it explicitly as an unalienable right.
But I can't imagine liberty or pursuit of happiness without property. For me, property is an integral, inalienable part of those freedoms. How could I have liberty to do business, to produce or exchange something without property? If you can think of an alternative to property as a necessary condition for negative liberty please share it with me.
That brings us to progressive policies. Virtually all the progressive policies (redistribution, licensing, "consumer protection", reporting requirements, you name it) infringe upon my negative rights while I in fact do not infringe on anyone else's.