I mean, I had one with them on if Hitler was a leftist

By economic liberty, I mean a laissez-faire (from French Laissez Nous Faire, or Leave Us Alone) system wherein individuals are free to make economic transactions and trade with one another without any regulation, or any form of plunder, legal (taxation) or illegal (theft), with a system of written property deeds and land titles, a Gold-backed, uninflatible currency, no central banking, and enforcement of the terms of contracts. This is due to economic calculation – in a free trade, without force or fraud, both sides will benefit the vast majority of the time, as each is giving up something he wants less for something he wants more, thereby resulting in a slightly-raised standard of living for both participants in the trade. When millions of these free and voluntary trades happen every day, you have a rising standard of living and security, prosperity, and happiness. Obviously, even the majority of economic transactions occurring today benefit both sides, for if even one did not see a net benefit in the transaction, or even saw a potential for harm and exploitation, why should he trade at all? That's the question Marxists never answer. But introduce force of fraud into a transaction, which the vast majority of times in the modern age, takes the form of bureaucratic regulation and taxation, and odds are that at least one side will suffer a loss, resulting in no net gain to society and often a net loss. Taxation is money that is plundered by force, and regulation is also another means of force and coercion to force an individual to do something the State wants him to. Both disrupt trade significantly, which is why I support their repeal.

The fundamental disagreement between right and left wing is as much your fault as my own, it is irrational and hilariously absurd to act like I'm the one purposely overcomplicating this conversation.

Lastly, why do I think Hitler considered socialists, counists, anarchist, labor unionists to be political opposition? Because those who campaign on a certain ideology, when placed in a position of political power, seldom ever hold true to the ideology upon which they were elected. They strive only for political power and personal advancement at the expense of others – that's human nature. So when these leftists, with whom he had minor disagreements, spoke out against him, Hitler sent the to concentration camps not mainly for ideological reasons but because he saw them as a threat to his bulldog grip on political power, which he was addicted, like all politicians, to. Just as left-anarchists and left-socialists have major disagreements despite both being left, just because Hitler has some major disagreements with other leftists does not make him a leftist, especially when he campaigned on many leftist principles, as can be seen if you read the Nazi Party platform he wrote. Without regard to whether you believe his style of governance was inherently left or right, the fact cannot be denied that he campaigned on leftist principles, won on leftist principles, and was allowed to get into the position of power that allowed him to do the damage he did on leftist principles. This should be a cause for alarm and reflection to all liberals to seriously evaluate whether the intentions of their preferred candidates are just for political power or are indeed pure, which is almost never the case in politics.