link to original reddit post by /u/Skogbeorn
I just went through "Why I Am a Left Libertarian" by Jeff Riggenbach, and I find myself agreeing with some parts, and quite vehemently disagreeing with others. Generally, I find myself endlessly frustrated when people equate left and right with progressivism and conservativism, respectively. To my my mind, the terms left and right wing refer specifically to economic policy, as regards central planning versus free markets. This got me thinking about how ancaps tend to differ on definitions of the left and right - you've got people like me who hold that anarcho-capitalism is as far right as one can get, and you've got people who refuse to call themselves capitalist altogether, favoring instead the term "free market anarchists", who often hold that they are on the far left. Of course, in reality "anarcho-capitalist" and "free market anarchist" mean the same thing, and it only boils down to a semantic argument, not an ideological one.
The origins of the terms left-wing and right-wing, as best I can make out, stem from the french revolution, where in drafting a new constitution, those involved would physically divide themselves on the left and right aisle of the meeting hall. On the left were those in favor of limiting the king's power, and on the right were those in favor of maintaining the king's power (I am of course simplifying the matter, or else this would be a very long post). A lot of modern leftists have taken this to mean that left-wing means distributing power equally (the intent of socialism), and that the right-wing want to concentrate power to a small group or even a single individual. Hence we get the notion that "the left is liberal" in wanting to diffuse power among all people, and that "the right is authoritarian" in wanting to concentrate power. I think this narrative is fundamentally grounded in that a lot of these people do not distinguish power derived from force (political authority) from power derived from voluntary interaction (capital). So from there, one could argue in typical leftist fashion, that free-marketeers desire economic inequality where some people are immensely rich at the expense of others, and are therefore both authoritarian and right-wing. From this line of logic stems the belief that Hitler, Stalin, the modern Chinese Communist Party, et cetera, are all "far-right", and that free market libertarianism is somehow intrinsically connected with fascism and general authoritarianism.
Language is a tricky thing, and I'm sure you're all familiar with the many types of self-described "anarchists" who do not respect the NAP and desire to force their policy on other people, usually some variant of socialism, mutualism, or the like. Going by my previous definition of left and right to mean central planning versus free markets, I would argue that there are legitimate anarchist ideologies on both sides of the aisle, distinguishing between so-called left-anarchists and actual left-anarchists by whether or not they present their policies as voluntary. If you want to go off and start a socialist commune you are of course entirely welcome to do so, as long as you do not impose said commune on people who do not desire to be part of it.
I must concede the point that there is no objective definition of the terms left and right. Even if we go to the origins of these terms, they would ultimately only serve to place one's thoughts on monarchy. The point of this post is to ask how all of you choose to define said terms, whether a case can be made for a more objective definition, or whether we ought to abandon the use of left and right altogether, seeing as how just about everyone uses those terms to signify wildly different things.