Print
The debate surrounding free trade and protectionism is poised to intensify under the Trump Administration. Recent policies and the public discourse often center on whether imposing tariffs or restricting imports can truly make a nation wealthier.
Yet history, economics, and ethical considerations consistently suggest that free trade enhances prosperity by allowing people to engage in voluntary exchanges without governmental coercion. Understanding why borders matter… and when they do not… is crucial to recognizing the flaws in protectionist arguments.
Why Coercion Undermines Prosperity
Any argument favoring restrictions on trade rests on the notion that the government, wielding both legal authority and force, has the power to prevent two parties from making a mutually beneficial transaction. Essentially, when a domestic producer faces competition from a foreign seller, it can appeal to the government to mitigate or even stop that competition.
This leads to tariffs, quotas, or outright bans on imports in many cases. Although tariffs are sometimes described as “tools” for economic growth, they are enforced by threats by officials who can penalize or even shut down those who disobey new trade rules. In this environment, freedom of choice and open competition are replaced by regulations that limit consumer options, raise prices, and curb overall wealth creation.
Invisible Lines and Arbitrary Borders
Much confusion over free trade arises from assigning exaggerated significance to national economic borders. People rarely question the absence of tariffs or trade restrictions between U.S. states, and the Constitution explicitly forbids states from imposing such barriers.
Yet the mere fact of crossing a national boundary is often invoked to justify taxes or restrictions on imported goods. The economic reasoning that clearly applies to free trade between states somehow vanishes once commerce crosses an international line.
No one seriously considers imposing tariffs on goods moving between Oregon and California. Yet when that same transaction involves, say, Washington State and British Columbia, proponents of protectionism argue that it is now detrimental to individuals, their businesses as well as domestic wealth. The border… and the government’s power to regulate it… suddenly transforms a free exchange into a restricted one.
A Lesson from History
Even within the United States, border controls have occasionally surfaced without sound economic justification. California’s ridiculous inspection stations once claimed to protect the state’s agricultural sector from pests. Still, these checkpoints originated during the Great Depression as part of an unconstitutional move to bar job seekers from entering.
Despite being struck down by the Supreme Court, the border stations remained… clinging to a new rationale of pest control in order to preserve bureaucratic jobs in California. This historical episode serves as a reminder that once government-imposed barriers appear, they can be challenging to remove, even when their stated purpose is proven faulty or outdated.
Protectionism and Mercantilist Thinking
The notion that a country benefits by reducing imports and subsidizing exports has ancient roots in a system called mercantilism. In 1776, Adam Smith famously challenged this approach in The Wealth of Nations, demonstrating that tariffs and import quotas create inefficiencies and reduce overall wealth. Yet centuries later, politicians and the public still cling to various forms of mercantilist thinking. They ignore the plain truth that restricting consumer choices… whether through tariffs or quotas… forces people to pay higher prices and hampers innovation.
Modern Free Trade and the Trump Factor
Since the 1960s, the United States has gradually embraced freer trade, lowering many tariff barriers and import quotas. This bipartisan consensus, however, has eroded in recent years. The Trump Administration’s approach included tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other goods, often justified by appeals to national security or the promise of revitalizing domestic industries.
One quick example. iPhones made in China have an assembly cost of between $10-$20 per unit. If assembled in California, assembly labor would be well over $50 per unit and perhaps as high as $75.00 per unit… once state regulators worked their magic. Today, the average iPhone costs around $1000.00. Bring that manufacturing to the U.S. would likely bring the cost to $2000.00. How all this would affect the average consumer and the economy as a whole is obviously difficult to calculate, but you get the idea.
New tariffs will also bring about more bureaucracy and a whole new level of bureaucratically managed trade, just like USMCA replacing earlier agreements such as NAFTA. Yet any plan that relies on an international bureaucracy or unilateral tariffs rests on the same flawed idea: that restricting voluntary exchanges can somehow enrich a society and its members.
Economic Logic and Individual Freedom In The Trump Years Ahead
Free trade rests on simple yet powerful logic. When people can buy and sell what they want without artificial constraints, markets encourage competition, innovation, and lower prices.
Protectionist policies do the opposite: they limit competition, raise prices, and entrench special interests. They also necessitate the forceful intervention of government agents to ensure that individuals cannot make mutually beneficial deals. This dependence on government force undermines the very principles of economic and personal freedom that are key to prosperity.
People across the political spectrum often claim to support the ideals of Adam Smith while backing policies like tariffs he spent his academic life refuting. Though voices calling for tariffs and import quotas may grow louder in 2025, the core message remains the same: market freedom, not government coercion, is the surest path toward a wealthier, freer society over the long haul.
