... Well, hope this was helpful.
Yes this helps tremendously.
In summary, you believe in out-sourcing the tools of national defense to countries that may not be your friend in the future except when you don't, not fighting back when attacked because it may not be a 'net plus' except when you don't, putting your country's domestic workers and industry in an untenable competition with neo-slave labor in countries that lack even minimal standards as regards the environment or labor conditions for the benefit of global corporations and finance.
A graphic representation of your logic:
Dude, slow down. Your comma-studded run-on post was like being yelled at by a crazy person from the window of a passing train.
I gave examples of cases where strategic protection doesn't achieve its goal: but rather has achieved bad defense and bloated government.
I believe in fighting back when attacked. I was pointing out what Smith was actually saying in his point about retributive tariffs. He wasn't saying they're a good thing: he was saying that there's a place for them when someone slaps them on you so that *both sides return to a tariff-less state.*
Your industries are in an increasingly untenable position because your domestic socialists have made America a bad place for them to make money. You're not competing with slaves: you're competing with capitalists who aren't laboring under your self-imposed burdens.
You can remove those burdens and compete, you can move to other areas of competition or you can clap tariffs onto your fellow citizens to force them to do what you believe is the right thing.
Which one of these three sounds like the American thing to do?