That is because you have a very specific view on what is "good". As you say, for Robbespierre, "good" was something entirely different. For Marx, also. For Ayatollah Khomeini, again it was something else, and for the Pope, it is still something different. It is because you have already assigned pre-determined values of goodness to certain concepts (freedom for instance) that these induce you to make those value statements.That would be the dogma of the mob (or perhaps Robespierre), not a constitutional democracy. C'mon that has a hole a mile wide and centuries of history posting warning signs en-route to the hole. Slavery was once considered a good for the majority. There are certain basic human freedoms that the majority, even in unanimity, does not have the right to infringe. Perhaps the state has the power, granted by the people, to in act very restrictive velvet glove labor laws, but lets not pretend that the state does not simultaneously reduce the liberty of others by doing so.
Total absence of liberty could be seen as something good in a certain doctrine, so anything that would grant liberty to individuals would be something to be suppressed and fought.
Our western democracies seem to have a common set of values, but in the details they differ, and there's no way to say that one view is "better" than the other, simply because they are different weight functions for what "better" means in the first place.
It is as if you wanted to assign probabilities to different probability measures.
And it is in that light that one needs to see the different attitudes towards things like the free market. Proponents of a totally free market claim that it is the "best" because it generates wealth, it is supposed to have some "fairness" in it (you get what you deserve), it respects certain forms of freedom (freedom to undertake) etc...
But the answer to that is that those goals are not necessarily, in a given doctrine, seen as what is "the ultimate good". However, it is true that most doctrines in the West do put some positive value upon those aspects - wealth IS currently valued, fairness IS somehow seen as something that could be valuable, freedom to undertake IS seen as something that might be considered positive. So that's why most of these doctrines do promote some form of free market. But one shouldn't forget that that is just up to a point, an arbitrary choice of the moment, and that those values could be in competition with other values, which are NOT automatically instored by a totally free market, and for which then regulations are applied, to get more or less what one desires (or not, if one does it badly).
For instance, I could be of the opinion that the highest value is scolarly knowledge. That it doesn't matter what people have to eat (as long as it doesn't threaten their basic life functions for a certain part of them), that it doesn't matter what they feel or think. The only thing that matters is that scientific knowledge is advanced and known. Even if that means that 3/4 of the population has to live in terrible circumstances. "Good" = "theoretical science advances and is read and known". Well, the free market is not going to instore that automatically. Replace this with 'biblical knowledge' and we have the doctrine of the European Middle ages.