Left and Right, Liberty and Etatism

I've wondered what should I write on this blog before going in "business as usual" mode. I'm interested in politics and will probably post a lot about it both international and Polish. So it'd be apropriate to define myself and straighten some blurry lines before starting. Different people may line up different perks at some key labels. Let's just point word "liberal" in European and American context. US "liberals" are simply a new branch of socialism. Some decades ago people representing this label in US went far left, but name sticked. European liberal is pro-market supporter of individual freedom.

Left and Right:
I've stumbled on some division on dKos (know thine enemy? no, political opponents isn't always an enemy). One of "liberal" progressives out there defined right as side that thinks people are evil, while left thinks people are good. Right polices and disciplines them, left want's to cooperate with them. Look around - such extreme mischaracterisations in polictical issues are neither new nor rare. How is it that in his own country left tries to sacrifice free speech for the great goal of protection from harassment, name-calling and all bad things some rude bastard can say about you. If people in liberals eyes are so good, how come they need to regulate not only what they do, but also say? On the other hand right stays by people right to own guns. If people in conservatives eyes are so bad, how come they give them lethal arms?

My favourite division looks simplier - left is emotions, right is morals. Ofcourse it's hard to find anyone precisely obeying this rule in all of his choices! Also there's no party in the world on actual end of the scale. However it's quite functional common denominator and in most cases works.

Some other feature might be one's standing toward society. Not if he finds it good or bad, but how does he qualify people while facing problems in the society. Right will most times think of them as of subjects. They're who they are, you're looking for a solution for them.
Left may frequently make them objects. To archive some desired solutions, they will some times try to act on them.  Changing people is almost all the time in their manual to a better world.
It looks like I'm valuing left approapch lower - but don't buy into "power to the people" hype. People not being treated as subjects, are no no proof of some gigantic crime of the left. Both ways can lead to different sides. Lefty may stomp on free speech, or turn education to indoctrination - to get his sociological goals... but in people originated problem like drugs concentrating on changing them may actually far better than sending overseas strike teams to damage miniscule part of supply chain.

I belive that stopping at this single division leads to many problems. There's at least one more needed to be done to characterize politics with any accuracy.
Liberty and Etatism:
This one is simple. Liberty - individual freedom. Etatism - state in control.
There's hardly any connection between divison for left/right and liberty/etatism. Left - which with it's emotion-centrism is better at marketing - made misleading conotation that left is close to liberty, while right to etatism.
It's untrue.
There may be extremaly etatistic police state on both sides... however untill now we've only seen left leaning ones. USSR was far left, III Reich was a little left from the center. Hitler was charismatic leader, his rise was in huge part due to emotions fascism in Germany pretty much started similiarily to commies. Also Reich had definetely socialistic economy. It was the same spirit of economic solidarity... only ending at one race.
Also you can have liberal left and liberal right. Well, lets say liberty left and liberty right for the sake of milions of US readers I'll have in the future, going back to this post. Liberty left is to some extent US "progressives", however their attempt at free speech is pushing them further away from liberty.

I call myself libertarian and I'm leaning right from the center at one division and favour liberty to extreme extent at the other. I hope some day some country will shrink giving power back to the point of leaving only army, police (or even "polices's police") and highest instance of court of justice.
Everything else will go private and coercion and violence will be curbed - not only citizen vs citizen phisical power will be outlawed (as it is now in civilised countries), state's coercion will also get minimized.
Is it impossible? Liberal democracy might be called impossible by citizen of ancient Egypt. Why would one with an army give so much power back? It worked so far and hopefully more progress will be made, just after another wave of sympathy to autoritarian rule and etatism dies down.