Values can be nuanced. Yes to free market but guess what, it occasionally needs checks and balances because while it works for a particular company it might bring society as a whole down.
Infrastructure like roads and electricity should not be controlled by a company because it's supposed to benefit everyone.
Let's talk about Uber. Say they survive this situation and thrive as a business, taking over the global cab market. Imagine they also perfect self-driving cars and next month they fire all the drivers.
Suddenly you have a company of ~10,000 people getting all the money from all rides around the world. And most of the money goes to the executives and a few thousand shareholders.
You now have a group of millions of people unable to make a living, and support their families. Apply this to all jobs that require mostly drivers (trucking, busses etc) and we just destroyed ~10 million jobs (including supporting infrastructure) in the US alone.
These people need to make a living - if Uber ends up paying super low tax (compared to what it displaces) we have a huge number of people making no money and a few getting all of it.
Civil unrest follows naturally (in one form or another) and you end up with either
1. Segmented civilization with a few people defending their wealth with hired guns
2. Social reform - guaranteed basic income for a while, but long term?
3. Revolution where the mob takes over and the outcome is anyone's guess - an extreme form of socialism?
It's not just about values, a lot of it is about long-term thinking.
Which of the three outcomes is better may be a question of values - is it better that a few people do super well and everyone else suffers, or most do pretty well?
Without some social stability and wellness companies cannot function - people need money to pay with, and without jobs there's not much money to go around.