I think a mistake pro-market people make is voting/supporting pro-market politicians who are also anti-social-progress. What I'm getting at is that I think that most/all pro-market changes ride on the backs of liberal social policy. Economic changes don't tend to happen unless there is a social sentiment pushing for it. Examples: gambling markets were destroyed not for economic reasons, but social reasons; marijuana markets are opening up not for economic reasons, but social reasons; the war on drugs is losing ground not for economic reasons, but social reasons; marriage markets for homosexuals open up not for economic reasons, but social reasons; even healthcare markets are opening up more than pre-ACA due to the social desire for expanded coverage.

The concept of private property is itself a social idea. The problem with the Republican party, even if it was super accurate on the economy, is that it is unable to make progress on the economy due to it being regressive on social policy. How markets change depends on what people demand, and what people demand is mostly about social policy, not economic policy. People don't understand the details that give them access to things they want (economics), but they do understand that they want access to things (social), and that's why economic freedom rides on the back of social freedom. Even if liberals don't understand economics as well as conservatives, I contend that liberals effect a stronger and freer economy inadvertently due to progress on social issues, while conservatives harm the very markets they claim they want expanded due to regressing on social issues