Quite the eye-opener, huh?
OK, here's my position on free trade. I don't profess to be an expert on the subject, perhaps none of us are. I am doing my best to understand it to some extent, though, and learning from these discussions. Surely, some of our points of view are basically different. I hope some of you will find the following reasonable, if you don't, good enough.
I entered this discussion after noticing that free traders were being likened to Karl Marx. I'm not even close to being an economics expert, but I do know enough to understand that Marx was no free trader, quite the opposite. In fact it is basic to socialist philosophy that economies must be managed, wages and prices set by the state.
But as far as I am concerned, there probably are legitimate reasons to restrict free trade from time to time, though I am certain that, as always, government intervention in the economy is normally is like a roll of the dice, the results will be unpredictable, usually negatively. Not to mention the implications for freedom of the use of one's own capital and the effect on the country of the loss of that freedom. And I would note that business entities exist for the sole or primary purpose of enriching their owners or stockholders, not for the advancement of social justice and arbitrary standards of living. When their existence does become justified by the advancement of social justice, etc., then we will truly be living in a socialist world.
However, there are surely industries that we want to protect (Some examples might be auto and aircraft manufacturing, shipbuilding, and of course IT) and keep within our shores for national security's sake. And there are countries whose best interests do not lie with our own. In those cases it seem to me that trade restrictions would be a legitimate tool of foreign policy.
But I do not mean to imply by this that our government should be in the business of protecting artificially set wages and prices. I think GM is an example, wages and benefits set by unions, combined with bad policy by management are likely the causes for her predicament today. While it's undoubtedly in our national interest to keep GM on her feet, it's not in our national interest to reward her mistakes.
As for Pat Buchanan's assertion that protectionism was responsible for the ascension of the UK and free trade her demise, I have my doubts, but await education from someone more knowledgable. But my feelings are that the greatness of the UK and the US were acheived more because of the free markets that were intrinsic in their societies than because of economic policies designed by politicians. I'd give credit to the decline of the UK more to her adoption of socialism. This is admittedly simplistic, lots of other factors here, not the least of which are the acquisition and loss of empire and the two world wars.
A brief recap of my own position: as a believer in the free market, I am obliged to believe as well in free trade, since we must trade, but recognizing that in the real world, free trade in a pure sense is not practicable too often and likely has never been practicable in a broad sense.