When Weird Al tries that, somehow he circles right back around to "right".

The right is typically for gun control. Only one country comes to my mind where they aren't. Which one were you thinking about? Or is it more common than I thought?

(Or did you just happen to forget that 95 % of Earth's population exists?)

EDIT: Oh, and also: It is important to keep in mind that it's the same within the left. There are also left-wingers who prefer authoritarianism and ones who despise it. I do agree with your sentiment: The left-right division does not work very well in our current world. Need to take best parts of everything, but most importantly, make sure we don't end up under totalitarian rule!

The biggest issue is that so many people see it just as you do, left vs right, instead of liberty vs authoritarianism.

For the most part the divide between "Left" and "Right" politically speaking IS the divide between Liberty and Authoritarianism. If you look up the History of the terms its easy to see this. Those terms originated during pre-revolutionary war France. The "Left" supported freedom from Tyranny. The "Right" supported the Monarchy. This has remained largely true ever since then.

Where the waters get muddy is so called 'Authoritarian Communism'. When Communism was first being discussed it, along with Anarchism in general, were correctly labeled as 'Leftist' ideologies. Under both the 'State' is abolished completely. You can literally go no further left than voluntary association and abolishment of the state. As far back as Karl Marx, elements of 'Authoritarianism' began creeping into 'Communist' thought. While Marx was a relatively enlightened thinker- neither he nor Engels were the originators of Communism- despite having written "The Manifesto". They were the originators of Marxism- an important distinction.

The goal- indeed one of the very definitions of 'Communism', even under Marxism is "a classless, stateless, society." As such Communism is a form of Anarchism. Anarchy technically only requires the abolishment state, but the vast majority of Anarchists also believe in "Mutual Aid", and 'private property' is a nonsense concept in the absence of a state- which is why so many Anarchists identify as 'Anarcho-Communists'.

Now clearly (in my mind at least), removing one of the fundamental ideas of communism- which is that 'The State' (and especially a 'strong/authoritarian' state) inherently upholds and enforces the class system in society and is a bad thing which needs to be abolished and you replace that with it's complete opposite- a 'Strong' State upholds and enforces 'classlessness' in society and is a good thing which should be supported, moves that type of "Communism/Socialism" from being a leftist ideology all the way over to being a far right ideology, as per the original and most commonly used metrics for determining if a position is "Left" or "Right".

The problem with 'reclassifying' 'Authoritarian Communism' to it's correct spot is that A) the ruling class (Capitalists) who are firmly right-wing do not want to be associated with it as it removes power from them and places it solely in the hands of the state. Likewise 'Authoritarian Communists' do not want to be associated with Capitalists either for similar reasons. Leaving the only people who care about the correct placement of these ideologies as the actual Anarchists and Communists- which are considered 'fringe', 'extremist', and 'radicals' by society as a whole and no one really cares about our opinions.

A 'True/Accurate' Left Right Spectrum would look something like...

Anarchism> Communism> Democracy> Social Democracy> Neoliberalism/ "Libertarianism(U.S. definition)" > Conservatism> 'Far Right'> "Authoritarian Socialism"> Fascism

Putting them in that order reflects the 'Liberty-Authoritarian' spectrum that is the "Left-Right" spectrum. You could of course argue placement and some of them could be rearranged depending on circumstances. For example I put 'Social Democracy' as further right than Democracy because 'Social Democracy' is still by and large a Capitalist system, yet if the majority of people in a Democracy were right wingers- then the order would flip, however this is largely right imho.

For decades, the libertarian movement, as seen by the left, has been largely associated with the right, simply because of their professed support of the free market, and dislike of gun control...

You are confusing 'The Left' with "Liberals". This is an extremely common and understandable mistake to make in the U.S. as there is a lot of intentional confusion. The 'Democratic Party', in particular since the 'Regan Era' is largely comprised of Neoliberals- a capitalist ideology. Capitalism relies on, and cannot exist without the exploitation of workers. As such you simply CANNOT separate 'Social' policies and 'economic' policies. Exploitation of workers IS a social issue- one of the most important ones- so if you support 'Capitalism' you are 'right wing' socially, even if you hold relatively enlightened positions in other areas.

Also "Gun Control" isn't a clear 'left/right' divide either. Many leftists share the view of some right wingers that having access to firearms is an important strategy to resist tyranny. If anything access to guns is a Left wing position that was adopted by some on the right, as crazy as that may sound to modern American ears.

“Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary”

― Karl Marx

One of the key ways that "Libertarians" try to muddy the waters of what is a considered Leftwing or Rightwing stance is the mantra of 'Free Markets'. But what is really meant is 'Unrestricted Capitalism'. If there was ever a "Libertarian" who believed in "Free Markets" in the absence of 'The State' and 'Private Property'- well they would likely correctly categorize themselves as a Leftist and not "Libertarian" (Please note the distinction between Private Property and Personal Property, and in particular how it relates to the ownership of the means of production.) Also to note: That definition of "Personal Property" is written from the POV of people born, raised, and indoctrinated by a Capitalist system and is not exactly how leftists would define it. "Personal Property" doesn't have to be 'movable' per se- ones residence or even a village collectively could be considered 'Personal Property' by Leftists. What really matters is that it's property that you can personally make use of. If you build yourself a small house for you and your family- that is personal property. If you lay claim to vast amounts of land that you couldn't possibly work by yourself- that would be "Private Property" - which would require some form of 'State' to enforce.

Now some so-called "Libertarians" will try to argue for something called 'Anarcho-Capitalism'. This is a mythical state of existence where there is no State, yet the people respect 'Private Property' rights. Ask most 'Anarcho-Capitalists' how they would propose to enforce private property in the absence of a state and they will tell you that they would hire Mercenaries/ "Private Police"/ a Small "private army"- Well at that point you are a Warlord. Which is the precursor to and one step removed from Feudalism. In other words by becoming a Warlord you have recreated 'The State', which is incompatible with Anarchism.

But that same movement has been seen by the right as largely associated with the left, because of their views on things like the drug war, enforced morality, and anti-corporatism.

It's unironically great that you support those things- but even 'anti-corporate' Capitalists are still capitalists- and still right wing- despite being more enlightened in other areas. You are basically no different than a neolib, but with worse takes on the economy. Neolibs are right wingers themselves. We basically don't have a "Left" in the U.S. The DNC is only "Left" of the GOP by relative positioning. The actual Left is growing day by day- thanks in part to the fascist takeover of the U.S., but we are still the minority for now.

But there are still quite a lot of us truly anti-authoritarian libertarians out there who despise both left, and right leaning authoritarianism.

But when I bring up issues of authoritarianism, I get “BoTh SiDeS?!” bullshit responses. Because YES, as we can see, BOTH SIDES do their own fair share of this authoritarian bullshit.

To reiterate my point, authoritarians can only ever be 'Left Wing' in name only. Calling it any other way makes no sense. It's like saying a poor wealthy person or a sick healthy person- the two concepts are complete incompatible with each other.

Plus, property rights are just a logical extension of personal privacy rights.

PERSONAL property, not PRIVATE property.

Now I haven't even gone into why the 'authoritarian' shift in "Communist" thought happened- and that is a whole other discussion. This rant was largely semantic but I feel it's important to make the distinction.

A lot of those r's are worse so you have to pretend d's are acceptable types are influence agents, working for both sides ironically as r aligned groups help keep beatable candidates to face them. There are plenty of dupes too but a significant percent are agents of monied interests. Ie mechanized troll divisions.

Well to be fair the left in the usa does have another reason to see the libertarian party as just another right wing party. They vote republican when it comes down to D vs R

I mushed a lot of things together in my post. Copyright and political censorship have very different motives behind them. The point is that, to enforce copyright, you need extensive surveillance of online content and the means to shut down the exchange of information. That requires an extremely expensive technical infrastructure. But once that is in place, you can use it for political censorship without having to fear pushback over the economic cost that would come even from politically sympathetic actors. Conversely, if you introduce political censorship, you might get support by the copyright industry, including the news media, for helping their economic interests.

Where it gets to political censorship, the paradox of tolerance is exactly the lunacy that I'm talking about. In mad defiance of all historical fact, there is belief that liberalism is weak, that political dissidents must be persecuted, information suppressed. Never in history has democracy fallen because of a commitment to tolerance. All too often, they fall because majorities feel their personal comfort threatened by minorities and support the strong leader who will "sweep out with the iron broom" (as a German idiom goes).

Do you notice how that Wikipedia article has nothing to say on history?

In Finland you could handle this by having people authenticate using their online bank passwords. A LOT of government stuff already works that way, so it would require almost no extra coding at least over here. I wonder why it cannot be done the same way in England?

So you would also support a child buying alcohol online on account of being given money and access to the internet?

We have given away far too much of our parental responsibility over to 3rd parties, and now we don’t know how to parent anymore.

A responsible parent can do as you say, but there are also not so much responsible parents out there, so maybe we need a backup option in these cases.

Ok. I get the concept that pornography doesn’t harm children. We can debate that.

But by that reckoning should we also allow children to buy guns online and have them delivered at home? Is there nothing we want to restrict online, on account that whoever is buying it might be too young?