A big problem is that your interpretation of economic liberty doesn't even apply to all right-wing ideologies. If this is genuinely how you define economic liberty, then your initial claim that "right wing people support economic liberty" already excludes every right-wing ideology that isn't YOUR hyper-specific branch of Anarcho-Capitalism. In fact, nearly every other right-wing ideology besides yours is fine with one or more of those things, and disagrees with one or more of those other things. Your requirements are so overly-specific that you've actually moved the criteria enough that the majority of right-wingers are excluded with your definition...which, along with the fact that I would definitely describe economic liberty differently, makes it a bad basis for "the right".

For example, I would argue that "liberty" is the state of being free from the imposed decisions of a hierarchical authority, hence "economic liberty" is the state of being free from the imposed economic decisions of a hierarchical authority. According to MY interpretation of economic liberty, right-wing ideologies are fundamentally AGAINST economic liberty. Additionally, my interpretation of economic liberty ALSO excludes some left-wing ideologies, which is why I would disagree with your initial premise that "economic liberty" is the categorical metric that determines left vs right. Not only is "economic liberty" somewhat subjective, but even our own interpretations of it exclude members of our own "side". It just isn't a good metric.

...in general more willing to see the government spy on its civilians via unconstitutional surveillance, and some rightists subscribe to an interventionist foreign police.

If you have to specify "in general" or "some rightists", then you've already recognized that those things are not definitive classifiers. If only some, or even most, ideologies subscribe to that metric, then it isn't a good metric for something that is supposed to be binary like "left vs right". People across the board can believe in varying levels of either of these, and for varying reasons. Even models as basic as the political compass understand this.

...especially under the current warmongering occupant of the White House...

Biden is not left-wing. The Democratic Party is not left-wing. Biden, and the Democratic Party that supports him, are moderate neoliberals (at best), which is a right-wing ideology (not quite as far right as Republicans, but still further right than Social Democracy, which is the left-most right-wing ideology). I would argue that anything further right than Socialism is "right-wing", hence every Liberal is a right-wing moderate/centrist. Liberals are ideologically NOT left-wing, because Liberals are still pro-capitalism. I do not like or support Liberals, or Biden, or the Democratic Party, BECAUSE they are all right-wing...and I am not.

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.

I'm not a Marxist Socialist (not all socialists or leftists are Marxists, if you didn't know that), but I can answer as a Leftist that, yes, we absolutely have answered this: coercion. Your idea of "fair trade" assumes that all parties involved are on equal footing, which is not true. If you need food, and some other person owns the food, then you will have to do whatever you need to do to meet their demands to acquire it. So long as someone else owns the things that you need, there is a fundamental imbalance of power within the interaction. This kind of private economic ownership organizing society like a hostage situation, in which the ownership-class utilizes their power over the production and distribution of society's goods and resources to make demands over everybody else to access things. I'm sure you disagree with this analysis, but this is one of the many answers that many leftists have given in response to this assertion.

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.

What do you mean? All I did was ask you a series of clarifying questions; not because you were overcomplicating the issue, but because you were oversimplifying the issue. You asserted that right=economic liberty and that left=anti-economic liberty, which I'm sure we should both be able to agree is ridiculous, for more reasons than one, as I've expressed here already. I am the one arguing that this dichotomy is more complex than what you previously implied, hence why I asked all those questions...

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.

So you are arguing that Hitler campaigned as a leftist, but once he got into his position of power, he instead used his power to enact non-leftist things?

Just as left-anarchists and left-socialists...

What is a "left-socialist"? It makes no sense to be "left-socialist" because there is no such thing as "right-socialist" either. Socialism is an inherently left-wing economic system, just as capitalism is an inherently right-wing economic system. You can be an Anarcho-Socialist (me) or an Anarcho-Capitalist (you), but Socialist is not a left-or-right ideology. There are different kinds of Leftists and Socialists, yes, so I understand the point of the claim, but I wanted to clarify that "left-socialist" is a fundamental misunderstanding of what "Leftist" and "Socialist" are.

...especially when he campaigned on many leftist principles, as can be seen if you read the Nazi Party platform he wrote.

Care to provide any examples of these principles, and why you think they are leftist? (I use this site at work so I really can't be looking up Nazi stuff lol)

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.

Ah, so are you arguing that Hitler was never actually a leftist himself, he merely lied about being a leftist and advocating for leftist policies, in order to appear more favorable to the actual leftists?