[Joakal]

Try this; socially liberal or fiscally liberal. There's also socially authoritative and fiscally authoritative.

Liberal topics; social: allowing nudity, gay marriage, hacking, etc, fiscal: lower taxes, less red tape, more corporate freedom.

Authoritative topics; social; outlawing nudity, gay marriage, hacking, etc, fiscal: more taxes, more red tape, more corporate control.

It's not unusual for people to have hybrid positions. eg an person can believe that hacking should be banned and believe in paying lower taxes.

Or a person believes hacking shouldn't be banned and believe in paying higher taxes.

[celer]

Along with "more taxes, more red tape, more corporate control" one also sees things like environmental regulations. Whether supporting environmental regulations is liberal(I want the right to enjoy my back yard without smog from his car and without sludge from your factory) or authoritative(so don't pollute) is a topic that is up for debate, and shouldn't be lumped in with "corporate freedom."

[Joakal]

I'm talking about government regulations in general. Environmental regulations are, by definition, authoritative because the government enforces that law. It's very hard to create laws, eg the right to enjoy backyard without smog, as even people breath out pollution. It could be argued that by creating a law prohibiting smog in your backyard, it's far more authoritative than a law to regulate the levels of smog.

It doesn't mean that authoritative laws are bad, really. Some laws are mildly authoritative (anti-littering) to heavily authoritative (anti-terrorism). People's positions tend to be relative to the country they're in. For example, a fiscal-centre-liberal person in USA could be seen as a fiscal-far-liberal person in France.