Hundreds of conservative operatives outlined a plan that Donald Trump, or any Republican, could use to purge climate action from the federal government.
I don’t think they really fit right wing - that means preserving the status quo. You could argue they’re conservative, but really they’re closer to anti-liberal, which is not the same as conservative - both liberal and conservative become authoritarian as you progress, and those are very anti-authoritarian
Well, “liberal” would mean the same as “libertarian”, for starters, only the latter word was invented due to the meaning of the former becoming fuzzy (say, somehow meaning people advocating for central regulation, which doesn’t have much to do with “liberty”).
“Right” initially would mean tradition, privilege, social hierarchy, military etc.
“Left” initially would mean change, equality, social mobility, peace etc.
Now, closer to the end of the XIX century “left” became associated with social-democracy and various labor regulations by the state, emancipation and internationalism, and “right” with market liberalism, traditionalism and isolationism\chauvinism, and also notably “left” as in favor of bigger state intervention, while “right” in favor of individualism.
Anyway, your use of the word “liberal” was what surprised me the most, ancaps are more liberal than just anybody else, they are the extreme.
Huh, liberal is the difference here, but the definition I’m using isn’t commonly used in the US, up until college we’re taught left=liberal=democrat, and even then basic humanities courses might barely mention the difference
Your definition makes more sense based on the root of the word, but my more recent understanding is that liberal trends towards maximizing freedom (eg, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose). That jives pretty well with libertarians - their ideology is a mix of this idea of liberalism but with the structure cranked down until it approaches anarchy
To push back a little on another front though, anarchy isn’t about freedom, it’s a lack of having anyone above you. It’s group rule in a way very different than democracy - there’s no person or system above you, instead all that is replaced by social norms.
It’s no rulers, not no rules - it could be extremely high or very low freedom depending on the specifics (and real world examples tend to have more rigid social norms, so this isn’t just pedantics)
I don’t think they really fit right wing - that means preserving the status quo. You could argue they’re conservative, but really they’re closer to anti-liberal, which is not the same as conservative - both liberal and conservative become authoritarian as you progress, and those are very anti-authoritarian
Ah, you use the American meaning of “liberal”, “right” and “left”, I guess. In this case that’s about same as what I said.
I don’t think I do
In your understanding what would left, right, liberal, and conservative mean?
Well, “liberal” would mean the same as “libertarian”, for starters, only the latter word was invented due to the meaning of the former becoming fuzzy (say, somehow meaning people advocating for central regulation, which doesn’t have much to do with “liberty”).
“Right” initially would mean tradition, privilege, social hierarchy, military etc.
“Left” initially would mean change, equality, social mobility, peace etc.
Now, closer to the end of the XIX century “left” became associated with social-democracy and various labor regulations by the state, emancipation and internationalism, and “right” with market liberalism, traditionalism and isolationism\chauvinism, and also notably “left” as in favor of bigger state intervention, while “right” in favor of individualism.
Anyway, your use of the word “liberal” was what surprised me the most, ancaps are more liberal than just anybody else, they are the extreme.
Huh, liberal is the difference here, but the definition I’m using isn’t commonly used in the US, up until college we’re taught left=liberal=democrat, and even then basic humanities courses might barely mention the difference
Your definition makes more sense based on the root of the word, but my more recent understanding is that liberal trends towards maximizing freedom (eg, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose). That jives pretty well with libertarians - their ideology is a mix of this idea of liberalism but with the structure cranked down until it approaches anarchy
To push back a little on another front though, anarchy isn’t about freedom, it’s a lack of having anyone above you. It’s group rule in a way very different than democracy - there’s no person or system above you, instead all that is replaced by social norms.
It’s no rulers, not no rules - it could be extremely high or very low freedom depending on the specifics (and real world examples tend to have more rigid social norms, so this isn’t just pedantics)