@admitsWrongIfProven

So extremism side in terms of politics is easy to Identify... If someone has a set of ideologies where anything that is even slightly different, introducing nuance, is "the enemy" then you are dealing with someone on the extreme end.

If you are on the left and see centrists as evil as the right, and even the moderate left as evil, then you are probably an extremist.

Basically you just need to look at how well defined the walls of the silo is.

So yea extremism is easy to identify... now right vs left I think that is harder because you can be right and left in different categories its not an all or nothing thing.

For example communists, socialists.anarchists, progressives. are all generally agreed to as "left" though having quite a bit of ideological difference. Generally I'd say the common denominator of the left vs right is the left focuses on ensuring individuals power is mitigated (to some extent) and that the power and resources need to be spread out and not allow the natural processes of of concentration of power in a small group of individuals.

Therefore common themes among the left are redistreibution of power and wealth and/or the prevention of centralized power (as is the case of anarchism, which even sees the government as bad).

the right on the other hand seems to see a strong centralized power as ok, so long as it comes about through natural power-dynamics. Generally prefering free-markets and seeing accumlated power in a central place as both natural and good.

the meanings of right vs left in a political context have changed over time. originally it referred to the two opposing wings of the revolutionary french legislative assembly. on the left were all the folks you cited, but also including laissez-faire/free-market capitalists such as bastiat. whereas on the right you had the monarchists, aristocracy and those interested in centralized power. repositioning laissez-faire onto the right (ie. authoritarian) side of the spectrum is not only historically incorrect, but against the ethos of laissez-faire entirely.
Follow

@toiletpaper @admitsWrongIfProven

I dont think that was much of a change at all. The spectrum remained the same, free-market proponents are certainly more left than dictators or monarchs.. it was true then as it is true now to say, from the perspective of a dictator free-market supporters are left of them.

the underlying logic of laissez-faire as I understand it is "equal rights". essentially that no group has rights superior to an individual, thus making the state, or economic interference by the state (such as regulation, taxation), illicit. on the other hand, when transgressions occur, one can leverage the common law system for redress, rather than as now, having to sue the government who already gave regulatory permission to transgress. moreover where any ensuing damages would go to the victim in a common law scenario, in the current state off affairs, the government and lawyers would get the cheque, and the victim left holding the bag. insofar as left = market regulation, and right = no-regulation, which do you think results in greater personal freedom and accountability?
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.