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.
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.
Crypto has always been about a number of things.
immigration, religious tolerance, lgbt rights.
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.
They probably could. The large bulk of right wing legislators and media personalities aren't like this, though.
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).
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.
Why? People largely agree that things like false advertising and fraud regulations increase freedom, despite being literally censorship.