From Wikipedia, with the usual cautions on using that lexicon as a source;
‘
The terms Left and Right have been used to refer to political affiliation since the early part of the French Revolutionary era. They originally referred to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France, specifically in the French legislative assembly of 1791, when the king was still the formal head of state, and the moderate royalist Feuillants sat on the right side of the chamber, while the radical Montagnards sat on the left. This traditional seating arrangement continues to be observed by the Senate and National of the French Fifth Republic.

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum were the attitudes towards the ancien regime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic, royal, or clerical interests, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same. At that time, support for socialism and liberalism were regarded as being on the left. The earlier "left-wing" politicians were advocates of laissez faire capitalism and the "right-wing" politicians opposed it, until the early nineteenth century when anti-capitalism gained favour among the leftists due to the rise of socialism.’

I notice that there is a tendency to characterise someone in a debate as either left-wing or right-wing and from that point onwards to define them totally within that pigeon-hole. I include myself in that ‘j’accuse’.

Are those terms like philosophical bunker-traps on a golf course, ready to trap the debater into a form of political sectarianism of the mind?

Are there any other terms available to us in the 21st century which will free us of characterising those with whom we debate as sitting to the left or right of the King?

After all, there is a known phenomena where a young person, idealistic and broke will favour left-wing politics and as they hopefully progress through life and acquire property and goods to protect they will it seems naturally become more conservative and less likely to regard property as theft, for example!

Given our nature, can we come up with a more useful and less insulting yardstick by which we can view the political views of others?