What are you in politics?

A question I hear from time to time is "what" I am in politics, and sometimes whether I'm a libertarian or even an anarchist! I have a hard time answering questions like these. I could call myself a liberal right-winger, but then I might be liberal in the USA-meaning of the word (statist and fond of increased government) and a right-winger in the European meaning of the word (national socialist). What I would be meaning is that I couldn't care less about social matters and what people do and don't do = liberal, and that I think the less there is of the state, the better = right-winged.

I could also call myself a libertarian. However, that isn't as straight forward as one might think. Some people confuse libertarianism with liberalism, and better yet - neoliberalism. If I'm not mistaken then neoliberalism is at its best in the USA, where the ruling "class" of the US-state believes in a relatively free economy, but wants a stranglehold on the American social-behavior. I'm not one of those.

It might be complicated to roll around in the definition-flood of the political spectrum. But maybe it's not. Maybe it's enough to divide the political spectrum into two poles - Left and Right - and do little else. Why so? Because I think people in general only have two approaches when it comes to politics and social thoughts, and everything else is derived from that.

1. Right: The general thought that society should more or less be left by itself, without government interference. This holds for economic and social affairs. Private property right is the foundation. Freedom to trade, communicate, do business, make contracts and so on. The state should only busy itself with protecting the freedom to do whatever, and government-run companies and institutions are the exception, but not the general rule.
2. Left: The general thought that society should be organized as much as possible, and that elected or self-acclaimed leaders can do that with the right tools and a right state of mind. Government-ownership is the foundation, and all of which has any value, or could have any value, should be left to the government to take care of. The state should run most institutions and companies, but a free market might be allowed to operate in exceptional cases or in cases where the government doesn't think something is worth the effort to control.

What derives from this are two constantly fighting poles, each one trying to push the other. We see for example what is happening for the Left in the United States: The health-care system is increasingly moving into the hands of the state, where it's to be organized by politicians. We see what has happened in Europe a long time ago: The state has/does most of which has to do with health-care, education, traffic, pension-plans and natural resources. Looking at it from the other side, the Right has also had its winnings. The World Trade Organization, the European Union and other multinational institutions have forbidden many government-actions which were taken for granted in previous times, such as state-support of selected industries, trade-barriers and harm to peoples personal property.

It can be seen that when the Left is strong, the state gets more and more "important" projects to take control of, or makes them up and "solves" by itself. Likewise, when the Right is on the move, the state is given stronger and stronger restrictions to roll over people, companies and the free market in general.

I'm to the Right. I'm not sure I need to say more.