Someone in this article's talk page claimed that this section of the article has a liberal bias, but if it does, it is a remarkably ineffective bias, since by most of the definitions given below, I am right-wing, despite considering myself libertarian and thus neither right nor left:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-ri...g_of_the_terms

Rejecting the inequality that results from the free market is left; accepting it is right.

Here I am right-wing. I see economic egalitarianism as counterproductive.

Preference for a "larger" government is left; preference for a "smaller" government is right.

My ideas border on minarchism, so again, I am definitely on the Right.

Relativism is left; Universality is right.

I'm on the Right again. Even apart from my Christian faith, I support what some would call universal prescriptivism in politics.

Equality of outcome is left; equality of opportunity is right.

The latter completely supersedes the former in my mind, so once again I am on the Right.

A secular government is left; a religious government is right.

Here I'm firmly on the Left. Religion and government should not mix.

Collectivism is left; individualism is right.

I am fiercely individualistic, so I am on the Right.

Innovation is left; conservatism is right.

I don't believe that tradition has any intrinsic value, so I am on the Left.

The idea that law dictates culture is left; the idea that culture dictates law is right.

I'm right-wing here without question.

Support for national independence, autonomy and sovereignty, especially for smaller groups is left; support only for established states and governments is right.

I'm on the Left by this definition. I support independence for Palestine and Chechnya, for example, even though I loathe the methods that some have used to try to bring about their independence.

Internationalism and cosmopolitan attitudes are left; national interests are right.

I'm center here. I oppose economic protectionism, but I also oppose alliances with other nations.

Diplomacy is left; military force is right.

I'm center again. Unless the United States is under attack by a foreign state, I oppose both.

The idea that human nature and society are malleable is left; the idea that they are fixed is right.

I think that our nature is pretty much hard-wired by our genes, so I am on the Right.

The idea that human beings are naturally good is left; the idea that they are naturally flawed is right.

We are naturally flawed- so flawed, in fact, that neither voluntary nor involuntary populism will solve our problems. I am solidly on the Right on this one. That puts me on the Right 8 times, on the Left 3 times and in the center twice. Whoever claimed the above has a left-wing bias is nuts.
I don't think that these definitions necessarily apply in today's world, but they are interesting to analyze anyway. I appreciate all replies. Thank you very much.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

This article is a good example of why people from outside an ideology should not attempt to define motivations unless joking or trying to start an argument.
I bet the guy who said it's left-biased is a right-wing wacko. As a left-wing lunatic. I see it as right-biased. Does that mean it's in the center? Possibly. But not in the sense that it captures both sides... more in the sense that it captures neither.

Overall I think dissecting the pieces and polarizing the two sides of the spectrum leads to a loss of actual philosophy and variation within the groups.

The writer favors universalism in this sense, so I detect a conservative bias.

By his definitions I would be right-wing half the time. I refuse to accept that blasphemy. Even when I agree with the cons on something it is for a liberal reason. This lame description does not capture that in the least.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

I think it does have a conservative bias. As a libertarian, I should agree with half of the right-wing ideas and half of the left-wing ones, yet by these definitions, I'm about 69% conservative, which isn't accurate. I would agree with the Old Right about that often, but the neocons have turned everything upside down. I agree more with the New Left than with the New Right. The New Right favors a larger government, relativism (i.e. whatever the majority wants is right), equality of outcome (albeit not in an economic sense), collectivism (again, not for egalitarian purposes) and believes that law dictates culture and that people are malleable. In other words, I agree with only 2 neocon ideas while agreeing with 8 Old Right ones. I agree with 3 of the above liberal ideas.
Right-wing propagandists use paleoconservative and paleolibertarian rhetoric to try to portray themselves as defenders of at least a degree of freedom, but in reality, they combine a non-egalitarian command economy with blind militarism, resulting in neoconservatism being a mild form of national socialism. That is why the poster (I can't recall who it was) who stated that the GOP, since 2001, is closer to the neo-fascist British National Party than to the UK's Conservative Party is correct. However, I should point out that when paleoconservatives form an unofficial coalition with economic populists, my level of agreement with them drops substantially.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

The scary part is I wind up on the conservative side roughly half the time.
The wording is such as to make any liberal with a philosophy other than communism side with the right.
My guess is the guy who thought it was biased was a moderate conservative, offended by the idea that conservatives are always universalists or for religious control... which to most on the far-right sound good.

Frankly I think the universalism vs. relativism is the dumbest one because of its ambiguity. The definiton you took was of universalized principles... which all ideologues believe in to some extent. You can't have an ideology without a universal principle such as freedom, life, or efficiency.
I think what it refers to is the conservative tactic of grouping and tending to care less about differences within groups, while liberals are caught up on even small individualities and distinctions.
But anyone with just a tad of objectivity realizes that these traits are far from universalized in their associated ideologues.
Looking at it deeper... it's just a dumb statement on the author's part.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

The "right-wing" propositions above are actually the notions of paleolibertarianism, while the "left-wing" propositions are those of France-like socialism (heavy authoritarian leanings). Given a choice, of course, I'd support paleolibertarians, but as I made very clear in another thread, I think that several basic paleolibertarian ideas are barely disguised authoritarian ones.
Traditionally, conservatism is conformity with a free market, while liberalism is non-conformity with a command economy. On a political level, I favor non-conformity and a free market, and furthermore I recognize that conformity leads to a command economy and a command economy leads to conformity. Social and economic liberty are ultimately inseparable. If I must be placed on the left-right scale, I'm dead center by American standards, though right of center by the standards of developed countries in general. It may be odd, but I still like that pleasure/pain "L" as an alternative to existing political measurements.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

I don't understand this fascination with putting everyone's politics in little boxes where they properly fit. Just have your views, regardless of where they stand on the scale.

It's more a set of continua than "boxes", but regardless, the fascination to which you refer is a highly respected field. Without it, people would blindly follow viewpoints without asking why they held them, which is the greatest danger to any society (e.g. Nazi Germany).

I don't care where my views stand on any scale, but I do analyze why I have them. Labels are expedient for such analysis.

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)