Disclaimer, I’m far to the left personally. With that in mind:

One definition is that on the left, everyone should be able to be however they want to be, and you shouldn’t infringe people’s freedom by telling them they have to be this way or that way, if that’s not in their nature. On the right, there’s a right way to live and a wrong way to live, and it’s okay if the people who are “in the right” and hold some natural authority as a result are telling the people who don’t have their act together (financially, life-organization-wise, sexually, whatever) what’s what.

I won’t say one is right and another is wrong; they apply well or badly in different contexts. Academia tends to be left-wing. Militaries tend to be right-wing. It’s generally good to be on the left if you’re trying to understand the world and figure things out without a preconceived notion of what the right and wrong answers are. It’s generally good to be on the right if you need action, strength of character, ability to defeat your enemies or defend yourself without getting extensively hung up in second-guessing.

This doesn’t apply very well to the modern US political landscape, which is pretty far afield of the traditional definitions of left and right, but that’s a separate topic.

Let the hate-responses commence 😃

I won’t say one is right and another is wrong

Why is it so hard for people to understand that imposing one’s will on another is fundamentally wrong?

It’s not always, though.

If someone shoplifts, the police should come by and impose their will on the shoplifter that they’re under arrest. If you’re raising a child, and the child doesn’t want to mow the lawn or keep their room clean, my opinion is that it’s your responsibility as a parent to address it in some fashion, instead of just saying “Oh well, he doesn’t want to.”

This is preceisely what I was saying: There are contexts where you can say “X is right and Y is wrong and we need to enforce that,” and other contexts where yes, trying to enforce it is some form of human rights violation. There can legitimately be disagreement about which is which, but pretending that everything is the second case is just as wrong as pretending everything is the first case.

If someone shoplifts, the police should come by and impose their will on the shoplifter that they’re under arrest.

This is the authoritarian mindset – I don’t believe ruining someone’s life and putting them in danger of being shot is the solution to likely petty losses.

Also, business owners are capitalists and are already robbing their communities, I have no empathy for them.

Parent child relationships I’m willing to bend a bit but there are enough abusive parents out there that I don’t believe that parents have ultimate authority to impose their will on their children. It takes a village…

This is the authoritarian mindset – I don’t believe ruining someone’s life and putting them in danger of being shot is the solution to likely petty losses.

How about if someone breaks in your apartment and threatens your safety? Would you support the cops being authoritarian with them, maybe putting their life in danger if they’re resistive against being arrested, in that case?

I’m not white, TBH I’d be more afraid of the cops killing me intentionally or “accidentally” than from someone who wants my stuff.