In 1886 Henry George said, “Free trade consists simply in letting people buy and sell as they want to buy and sell. Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their objective is the same—to prevent trade. The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading.” It's sad to see so many people on this forum and elsewhere taken in by fallacious arguments that were thoroughly refuted centuries ago. Restrictions on trade are restrictions on freedom. When the government says that you can't buy or sell a product to a foreigner at an agreed-on price, it's interfering with your freedom to do as you please as long as you're not hurting someone. (And the claim that you're hurting someone indirectly by not doing business with them doesn't count: If we start saying that you can't have your hair cut by Smith rather than Jones because this will hurt Jones, we abolish freedom altogether.)
Freedom lovers should support free trade just as much as they support freedom in all other areas, and for the same reasons. The real effect of accepting restrictions on trade is (surprise) that those with connections with the government (typically those who are already rich or powerful) get special favors (tariffs or quotas protecting them, or subsidies) while the rest of us get dumped on. Don't fall for the arguments of the special pleaders, the sophists, the con artists, who almost always turn out to be in the pay of those who stand to benefit from the trade restrictions they advocate, at the expense of everyone else. BD
So you got an industrialist and an admittedly brilliant economist, and I've got two founding fathers and two presidents. In the application of the logical fallacy of the Appeal to Authority, I seem to be beating you.