There are two definition from your link to free dictionary:
free trade
n.
Trade between nations without protective customs tariffs.free trade
Noun
international trade that is free of such government interference as protective tariffs and import quotas
My "position" is that those are pretty simplistic definitions given what we see characterized today as "free trade." I largely believe in the theory of free trade for non-essential items or non-critical industries (which would exclude basic food items, items/material required for national defense, etc.). But I don't believe that what we see today in FTAs represents "free trade" in the slightest.
Your statements have been vague and argumentative. You give an answer that is ambiguous, and when asked for clarification you feign indignation.
You didn't ask for clarification. You wanted me to agree with your statements. Next time, instead of posting "You therefore agree XYZ, correct?" try asking a question like "I don't understand what you mean by ABC." You'll get a much more welcome response.
If you take this as an attack on your intellect, you would be in error; if you take this as a statement about your inability to form a cogent position in this thread, you would be unequivocally correct.
You're an insulting little cuss, you know that? Was that "cogent" enough for you?
He’s still a relative n00b, you know. No need to get personal when he thinks he’s found an error in your reasoning.
Thank you for your answer. You position is that you have no position because it can be used to make you think and question your own little comfortable existence. So you choose no position except to attack others as being wrong.
Thank you for your contributions to this thread!
PS: I’m not really an insulting little cuss; arrogant and abrasive perhaps, but not insulting...