I'm not sure I understand your comment. Crypto was always about freedom, and as things stand the right is advocating for freedom more than the left (gun rights, freedom of speech, smaller taxes).
Crypto was always about freedom, you're liberated from the dependence on your country, bank, or whatever else it may be. Your fate is in your own hands, your wallet, your funds.
> and as things stand the right is advocating for freedom more than the left
I don't think that's quite clear cut. The right politically makes more hay about freedoms these days, but they have equally strong positions that are anti-freedom (pro-life, voting restrictions, immigration policies, drug policies, religion) and the left has pretty strong advocacy areas for freedom (religion, drug policies, "gay marriage" ) etc.
There are multiple kinds of freedoms, I suppose.
For immigration, yeah, being free to move somewhere seems clearly freedom. A freedom to do something.
Not being forbidden from practicing ones religion is also a freedom to do something.
Being free from being discriminated against on the basis of religion is a different kind of freedom, I think.
There is a similar way to split the third kind.
I suppose the boundary between “the freedom to do x” and “freedom from being treated badly for doing x” is kind of fuzzy. It would be absurd to say that “we have freedom of immigration, it’s just that basically anyone who comes in we happen to shoot.”, in such a situation, people are clearly being forbidden from immigrating.
But if someone is endlessly harassed by people, and treated with extra suspicion by the police, in response to their practicing their religion, yeah, that is kind of going against freedom of religion kind of in the first sense, or perhaps somewhere between the two senses, even if officially by law there is nothing forbidding it, and another law says that no law can be made which does forbid it.
But, even if things like this show that the distinction between the two senses is kind of fuzzy, I still think that the distinction is still somewhat relevant and somewhat reasonable.
A self-consistent rightist could very well support nearly-open borders, and legal protection of the practice of other religions, and oppose attempts to criminalize or otherwise legislate against LGBT things, on the basis of freedom, while at the same time also being somewhat discriminatory on a personal level against one or more of those groups.
> A self-consistent rightist could very well support nearly-open borders, and legal protection of the practice of other religions, and oppose attempts to criminalize or otherwise legislate against LGBT things, on the basis of freedom, while at the same time also being somewhat discriminatory on a personal level against one or more of those groups.
They probably could. The large bulk of right wing legislators and media personalities aren't like this, though.
> the right is advocating for freedom more than the left (gun rights, freedom of speech, smaller taxes).
You got that backwards: The left is advocating for freedom more than the right (freedom from gun violence, freedom from hate speech, freedom from preventable/treatable medical conditions).
agree about freedom re: healthcare. it would also mean freedom to take risks as a creator or entrepreneur, if you don't have to rely on an employer for health insurance.
the gun issue is a city vs rural thing. you don't want them in a city, but you might in the rural context.
> freedom from hate speech
but reframing censorship as freedom is blatantly Orwellian. also, the left is not a monolith.
the liberal left advocates for free speech and liberty. aligned with freedom.
the illiberal left advocates for censorship and control. the opposite of freedom.
The kind of freedom the left advocates is more about freedom from being dominated by some authority; but we see your boss or your landlord as being more of an immediate authority than the government. So we support labor organizing and tenant rights. Many leftists support the right to bear arms (Karl Marx, famously).
The original meaning of “right wing” meant supporters of monarchy or aristocracy. (The supporters of the aristocracy sat on the right in the Estates General assemblies right before the French Revolution, the commoners on the left). What you are describing is a free market libertarianism that denies or pretends that class doesn’t exist at all, which generally serves the interests of economic aristocracy.
Yes - I just finished reading a book about the French Revolution and it was surprising how far the modern definition of right vs left has strayed. Imagine living in a time when the leftists were pro-war nationalists who loved prison and the death penalty! But in the current political climate, libertarian market ideas are generally included in the basket of ideas labelled 'right'. That's all I meant.
Yes, I think also that the word freedom is a bit ambiguous which lends itself to being distorted. The left wing view is that freedom means not being dominated by authority figures, and the way you fight back against authority is to band together to pursue your common interests, which means that to obtain freedom you have to take collective action. So freedom is seen in terms of power relations. The right wing idea of freedom is being alone or being independent; but we on the left would say that being alone just makes you vulnerable, unless you are already in a position of considerable power. But you know, independence from other people is a kind of freedom too, so I can see the idea there.
Crypto was always about freedom, you're liberated from the dependence on your country, bank, or whatever else it may be. Your fate is in your own hands, your wallet, your funds.