Reviewing Freedom's Progress? is a little like reviewing an encyclopedia. Gerard Casey has written a book, each chapter of which contains a subject that is the life work of some scholars, that was badly needed - a history of political thought from an explicitly libertarian perspective. It's unfortunate, but likely true, that the number of people who will read this book cover-to-cover are likely fewer than the pages it contains. I don't mean this to sound pedantic - I only mean to say that the niche that this book fills is important, but incredibly small.
Rather than try to restate Casey's opinions on any given philosopher, I'll simply state that his treatment of his subjects - even Rousseau and Marx - is fair. His critiques are thoroughly fallacy-free (as one would expect from an authority on logic), even when his criticism of their ideas is withering. Generally, however, Casey's effort is not polemic, even if he is quick to point out when and how any given thinker or era was incompatible with his own libertarian anarchism. Rather, he views the development of political philosophy, from the Greeks through the 20th century, as a slow, halting movement out of tribalism and collectivism to individualism, from oppression to liberty. Casey views the book, modestly, as a documentation of these events. He is not at all sure that freedom has truly progressed towards a final, secure end state. Rather, as he notes, the history of freedom is one of gains and losses, with the result still very much in the balance (hence the question mark in the title).
One chapter that does bear mentioning is the book's conclusion, in which Casey discusses the compatibility between libertarianism and conservatism, two positions the proponents of which are typically quick to say are irreconcilable. Casey's tremendous, if brief, deconstruction of the essential elements of this debate is essential reading, especially for those of us who value both liberty and order, freedom and virtue. It may seem odd to suggest that readers wade through 850 pages in order to read a new take on "fusionism," but this chapter really is the capstone of Casey's entire work, one well worth considering.
Whatever readers may think of Casey's opinion on this or that idea or ideator - and only a hopeless sycophant could make it through such a book without at least occasionally disagreeing with Casey's conclusions - the sheer immensity of his effort, to say nothing of its quality, warrants a five-star rating.