[smsm42]

If you want to compare bothering other people, both left and right is guilty of bothering other people. On the left, we have taxes, gun control, speech control (the PC variety), various financial and labor regulations, etc. On the right we have decency laws and associated speech controls, marriage licenses, drug prohibition, opposition to immigration, etc. Of course, both lists are far from being complete.

The ideologies built on not bothering are outside linear left-right spectrum, towards libertarian and further anarchist ideas (depending on how far you are willing to go with that concept).

[hnamazon123]

Yeah I agree except for the immigration thing. That is an international affair and a matter of sovereignty and has nothing to do with personal freedoms.

Leftism currently is driving the hardest for authoritarianism. I expect we'll see something similar on the right in about a decade though I'm curious to see what it'll look like considering that it seems like religiousness is on the permanent decline in America.

[smsm42]

On immigration, it kind of depends on how far you take it. Banning all immigration would definitely create a lot of issues for US economy that can be considered bothering people affected.

> Leftism currently is driving the hardest for authoritarianism

True for now, but one must not confuse difference in degree with difference in kind. It is true that implementing the left agenda probably requires more "bothering", at least taking current status of affairs as a starting point, than the right's agenda. But it's a difference in degree, not in kind, and also a function of the current status, not the principal differences. The right has no problem with authority bothering people when it fits its agenda the same way as the left.

That's actually what I see as one of the major deficiencies of the current US political system. Both the left and the right try to use the state to advance their agenda, but the result is mostly the state is getting bigger and bigger, and still nobody's happy.

[angersock]

They hardly have a monopoly. Trump's stated positions on weakening and attacking the press when it suits him are from the same playbook.

[smsm42]

True, though I would not take Trump as a good example of a conservative. He certainly plays hard on some of the conservatives' currently favorite instruments and sings some of their favorite songs, but that doesn't mean he is ideologically one - just that he wants their votes, and they are willing to ignore (not all of them, mind you - there's a sizeable anti-Trump sentiment among the conservatives) his mismatches with their agenda because they perceive the matches are more important.

[hnamazon123]

I don't know how you can look at media organizations like the New York Times and not see that they clearly have a comically overt agenda in how they talk about him and represent his positions.

[smsm42]

NYT certainly has a known political bias, and that's no secret to anyone paying attention. Trump highlighting this bias and addressing it would not be a problem. Trump hinting at using state coercion to influence the content of NYT reporting is a huge problem and runs directly contrary to the 1st amendment (not that his presumptive opponent doesn't have her own huge flaws in that department) and US free speech culture.