People seem to think that right means something along the lines of "one likes the GOP" or left means something along the lines of "one likes the Dems". Right libertarians are assumed to come from reading too much Rothbard, and left libertarians too much Kropotkin or something. But I don't really think that's it at all.
Seems to me that, when you come up to Chesterton's fence, if you take more time to consider it's purpose before making the decision to use it for kindling or building material or are more apt to assume it's probably got a reason behind it's existence, you're probably more right wing, and if you just want it out of the way quickly because its' downside is obvious and apparent, you're probably more left wing.
Nobody disagrees that the fence has a downside. Cost-benefit analysis assumes there's an inherent cost to consider.
In the tradition/change consideration that is left/right, ain't nobody on either side that thinks all tradition or all change is good, or that all tradition or all change is bad. It's more a question of deference, assumptions, and velocity.
Like... anarchy and communism are both left wing ideologies everywhere outside of anarchistic or communist societies. They're dependent on existing norms and how resistant to them the radicals are. How patient or passionate one is, how cautious or reckless.
They're a stupid way to order politics, because there's a time or place for either without actually having to change your underlying beliefs. If there's a reason to reject those labels, it's because there's some traditions with preserving, some change worth exploring, and this is true regardless of which way you actually...
Lean. And even the correct speed isn't the same on every road.