This is why the terms left and right are worthless.
Much more descriptively accurate is statists vs. sovereign individuals. Everything begins to make sense.
I would go with "mob" over "statists" -- because that's what we're really dealing with at street level.
And you need to add a third class -- those who whip up and give direction to the mobs.
I would also argue against the idea that the mob is necessarily opposed to "sovereign individuals" (
http://www.sovereignlife.com/sovereign-individual.html). From the link, some of the defining characteristics of a "sovereign individual" include:
a belief in the concept of self-ownership; a strong commitment to individual rights; a distrust of political democracy; a market-anarchist or natural order mindset; a belief in the right to financial and personal privacy; a willingness to think and act outside the square - as regards being beholden to existing nation states; an active strategy of banking offshore and using various structures to protect one's assets.
Some of those are very good qualities. However, experience suggests that "sovereign individuality" is opposed to such necessary virtues as duty to others, and that certain selflessness that is to be found in the better class of statesmen. One also detects in the description a whiff of the Clintons or Mr. Trump -- not to mention the abysmal silliness of Ayn Rand. It's only an overarching moral foundation (such as is provided by religion) -- not mentioned and probably not desired -- that prevents those who style themselves "sovereign individuals" from becoming utter bastards.
Moreover, I'd suggest that those who fancy themselves as "sovereign individuals" are perhaps more susceptible to the temptations of the mob bosses, who are extremely good at playing to the vanity of those who, because they are "sovereign," think themselves better than others.