There's another way to look at this exact point: the free movement of capital and goods across borders can obviate the temptation, (which the Chamber of Commerce types might say "need") for migration of populations, legal or illegal. Peter Brimelow made this point at length in his book 20 years ago (yes, I realize he's Persona Non Grata here, but I think he was right about this particular issue.) I don't know about you, but I'm a lot more impacted by illegal alien immigration than by someone buying a giant box of cheap T-shirt made in China at Walmart.
There are indeed some things that you can't find Made in the USA. That was my point. That is indeed a fact. I don't think anyone would argue that point.
Well, so what? Is that a good, bad or neutral thing?
But now we get to the meat of the argument:
Your argument for "freedom of choice" is a non-starter.
Exactly. You want to use the power of the state to dictate to your fellow Americans what they can, and cannot make their own purchasing decisions about. I get it. You're very clear on that point. But don't be surprised when you get pushback from the people you're dictating terms to.
I would not be in favor of banning goods from other countries. Tariffs? Absolutely.
Well, it's heartening that you would still allow people to buy cheap crap made in China from Walmart, but sad that you want the government to pick their pockets with a tariff (which is just a particular form of tax.) Just like we did for the first 130+ years after the country's founding.
The early US was largely agrarian, and trade protectionism was viewed as a way to protect nascent US industrial expansion from more developed economies. Policies that may have been appropriate then are almost certainly not in our interest today.
But with all due respect, this is where your argument goes off of the rails: FREE TRADE should ONLY be a privilege extended to our fellow states. The original colonies got together for the common good. With statehood comes certain rights and responsibilities. When we extend "free" trade to foreign countries we are extending to them the "right" of a state without any responsibilities for being a state.
I've certainly had my arguments with the Libertarians here and elsewhere, but I think that they are correct in pointing out that we're talking about individual economic transactions, not between nations. Put another way, every single decision Apple makes to manufacture a touch screen, is taken because they think that it's in their private interest to do so. Likewise, every single consumer decides either to buy, or not buy an iPhone in an individual transaction. Frankly, we don't need the government of the US adding a tax (in this case on the iPhone) to create some sort of imaginary "balance". The people being hurt by China's trade protectionism are the Chinese people, who are subsidizing the development of their crummy state-supported industries. That, however, is their problem, not ours. Erecting trade barriers to protect our own crony-capitalists and buggy-whip manufacturer's unions (which is what you want to do) helps those narrow groups and hurts everyone else.
So, no thanks.
Is China going to protect our borders from attack? Hardly.
Finally something we can agree on. China could shape up to be our primary geopolitical rival within the next decade. But I still don't care if they make all of our iPhones.
You might as well extend foreigners the right to vote.
Exactly. Which gets us back to Brimelow's point that you can let goods and capital move freely, without having to admit the third world into our country.