I think we're all better off if we just admit that there is no accurate linear way to set up political philosophy, at least not whole philosophies. Maybe if we take each issue, maybe even some subsets of issues, it can be semi-accurate.
But let's just face the fact that some things are better studied in qualitative rather than quantitative terms.

On your proposed chart I'd fall under "Capitalist with safety net."
To my direct right would be "Capitalist with some regulation".

What happens if there is a capitalist who does not believe in safety nets but does believe in far more actual business regulation than I do?

And even more problematic is when you get to anarchists. At that point they may agree with no government (state actually), but the order, especially when it comes to economics will range in shockingly different ways.

And there's a serious flaw in believing you can equate social and economic policy on the line... Social politics has a lot to do with what people will allow in power to the people. Right-wingers tend to view that as a liberal trait... but a hardcore capitalist or a hardcore socialist, either one will believe in strong restrictions- independent of the feeling of the population- on what the government is allowed to set as economic policy.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III