3 ms·

Why do you describe “free market” as being ideological, and “pro-market” without those terms? Both seem equally ideological (or not).

• qeternity 2y ago
  Because they are against one and for the other. Pro markets means whatever policies they agree with, which is of course how all broken highly regulated markets begin their run.
• sdwr 2y ago
  Idealist: "the free market is perfect!" Realist: "the free market has flaws, which can be addressed by..." Replace "free market" with anything you like
  • meiraleal 2y ago
    The realist might be an idealist that is seeing inexistent flaws tho
    • hiatus 2y ago
      Then that's not a realist, by definition. > accepting a situation as it is and being prepared to deal with it accordingly. or > representing a person or thing in a way that is accurate and true to life.
      • meiraleal 2y ago
        That's the point, a wrong realist.
    • TeMPOraL 2y ago
      They most likely aren't idealist, as that isn't a requirement. Anyone who's smarter than a potato can notice some of the more glaring failures (even if they don't understand the mechanism behind it).
    • sdwr 2y ago
      Very true. The definition of realist has flaws...
• gizmo 2y ago
  Everything is ideology to some extent, but not everything is ideological to the same degree. The beliefs that a level playing field is good and that winning by means of political favoritism is bad are almost universally agreed on. Almost all political philosophies, including various shades of socialism and communism, agree that markets are needed to some degree if only for price discovery.
• theossuary 2y ago
  Republicans have made the term ideological a negative one. Sure, the dictionary definition is to relate to ideology; but in practice (especially when talking politics) it implies one is picking a worse option because it aligns with their ideology. So their claim above is one is picking free markets due to ideology, whereas another would pick pro markets because it's actually the best solution.