Well, if we go back to the word I used in my comment, "socialistic," I think you looked up the wrong word.
I was speaking of degrees. And if you consider that "socialism" also involves some form of government control of the economy in order to ensure "fair" outcomes (as determined by the collective, in theory), then it is not unreasonable to call tariffs "socialistic."
I should probably also add that, if we were on a different thread this wouldn't be much of an issue: it's just that we (collectively, there's that word again) have been playing semantics on this one.
So by your "reasoning", are stop signs socialism?
It certainly wouldn't be out of place given the other convoluted things that you and your free-trade cohorts have said.
If you take your definition, I'd say free trade agreements were more "socialistic" than tariffs as FTAs are largely directing the kind and nature of production through controlling supply and suppliers. But then, that would be convoluted because that isn't what socialism or socialistic means.
Again... socialism is where the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government. Neither is true with respect to our current "managed trade" practices.