Makes me think that the "right" is insincere, they say they are "pro-business" but really they are only "pro BIG business".

How can we know? Because if they were pro small business they would be pro universal healthcare, so that it would be easy to start your own business.

The only thing this demonstrates is the sheer idiocy of dividing ideas by "sides" or party lines. Real life has complex interactions that don't get captured by this.

I suspect the "right" is actually sincere. But it so happens that ideas giving more power to private businesses tend to disproportionally benefit larger businesses over the smaller ones (this is a natural advantage of having scale and capital). The ideas surgically targeted to benefit smaller businesses? The "targeted" aspect tends to pattern-match to the "left", so they get rejected. The end result looks like the "right" was dishonest, but IMO it's just the ass-backwards stupid fixation on ideology over problem solving that causes this. And the same thing applies to the "left".

This is all true, but I would add that many on the right are fully aware of the imperfections of the market, but believe the imperfections of government intervention are worse, and also less tractable. I agree with them on the first, although not the second.

Without government intervention there would be no law, there would only be anarchy and the law of the biggest and brutest. It would be Wild West all over again. Wild West of course is great for the fastest and biggest gun in town but less so for everybody else. I can already hear the fastest gun in town declaring "NO GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION !!!"

This is a natural advantage of legalized bribery and SCOTUS's disastrous money == speech decision.

No. The same thing happens all around the world. Your "left" and "right" may be different than mine "left" and "right", but their problems still come from people fixating on ideology over solving problems.

Going even further: if you want to support small businesses, let's establish UBI.

I know a lot of small business owners who were only able to strike out "on their own"...because their spouse worked for a large corporation (or the government). They could afford to spend a few years getting it off the ground, supported by the family's other income (and health insurance). So, I suspect you're correct on this.

You are my first hacker news crush.

I question your assumption on #2. I’ve specifically made this point on HN repeatedly (contracting 1-person outfits are common here) and you could label me as “left”.

It should be like the green new deal - the economics of eg Medicare4All is similar in that it’d greatly improve life for small business as well as families.