You're much further away than I am, because you're using the contemporary 'definitions', ie the modified and invalid ones. Size of government has nothing to do with it.
Right-wing refers to a civic perspective that places value on individuality and tradition. This can either be achieved by using the government to enforce tradition and uphold individual liberty, which requires strong government, or by throwing out the government altogether and letting the natural order sort out what hierarchies and traditions remain through individual agency.
The former is referred to as a traditional conservative, and the latter a far-right extremist. Both are right-wing, and both have dramatically different views on the scope and power of government.
If you're going to futilely cling to the comically absurd notion that the left/right-wing verbiage came from Christianity and not the French Revolution, then there's no more discussion to be had here.
In the specific context of the left- and right- sides of parliament, they were not for anarchy, but when the terms became generalized and not referring to specific seating arrangements in the house of parliament, they came to mean abstract ideas that each of those parties represented.
And if you take the abstract idea represented by the people who sat on the right side of the hall to its logical extreme, you get anarchy. Which is why anarchists are the extreme right wing, not the "normal" right wing.
And since we're not talking about the specific seating arrangements of the house of parliament in France at that time, but rather the abstract civic principles they represent, and then taking those ideas to the extreme, I do believe I'm still correct.
You're much further away than I am, because you're using the contemporary 'definitions', ie the modified and invalid ones. Size of government has nothing to do with it.
Right-wing refers to a civic perspective that places value on individuality and tradition. This can either be achieved by using the government to enforce tradition and uphold individual liberty, which requires strong government, or by throwing out the government altogether and letting the natural order sort out what hierarchies and traditions remain through individual agency.
The former is referred to as a traditional conservative, and the latter a far-right extremist. Both are right-wing, and both have dramatically different views on the scope and power of government.
No, I'm using the absolutely ancient definitions, from back when this was first started two centuries ago.
Back then, the left stood for anarchy and tyranny both. The right stood for Christian monarchism.
Lol. K.
If you're going to futilely cling to the comically absurd notion that the left/right-wing verbiage came from Christianity and not the French Revolution, then there's no more discussion to be had here.
The French Revolution is what I'm talking about. In which the right had not one damn thing to do with anarchy. That's the entire friggin point.
In the specific context of the left- and right- sides of parliament, they were not for anarchy, but when the terms became generalized and not referring to specific seating arrangements in the house of parliament, they came to mean abstract ideas that each of those parties represented.
And if you take the abstract idea represented by the people who sat on the right side of the hall to its logical extreme, you get anarchy. Which is why anarchists are the extreme right wing, not the "normal" right wing.
And since we're not talking about the specific seating arrangements of the house of parliament in France at that time, but rather the abstract civic principles they represent, and then taking those ideas to the extreme, I do believe I'm still correct.