I find your exchange of comments very nice because it so perfectly illustrates a pet peeve of mine.
The assumption "free market = good" is so widely spread and deeply rooted that anything which is identified as "bad" is then assumed to be against "the free market", when really, it is often perfectly aligned with "the free market", and the truth is that "free market = good" is naive. Free markets have good and bad sides; the good tends to significantly outweigh the bad, but unless you recognize that there is some bad in there as well, you're not going to end up with a very good policy mix.
One can try to excuse the naive way of thinking by pretending that one is merely using a shorthand, but really, I'm doubtful that that's anything more than an excuse.
Free market = non-compulsory, voluntary choice. As things go, it's not a bad place to start. Also, what does your comment have to do with the specifics of this discussion?
The assumption "free market = good" is so widely spread and deeply rooted that anything which is identified as "bad" is then assumed to be against "the free market", when really, it is often perfectly aligned with "the free market", and the truth is that "free market = good" is naive. Free markets have good and bad sides; the good tends to significantly outweigh the bad, but unless you recognize that there is some bad in there as well, you're not going to end up with a very good policy mix.
One can try to excuse the naive way of thinking by pretending that one is merely using a shorthand, but really, I'm doubtful that that's anything more than an excuse.