Comment: i agree with this mostly, but

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Well reasoned and written post... (see in situ)

i agree with this mostly, but

i agree with this mostly, but have 2 objections.

one, the political fact is that nations will continue to exist. people will continue to form groups around common identity and act together for mutual interests, primarily national defense. they will require political autonomy from other nations. therefore, some minimal forms of protection of some industries will continue, the extent of which has to be determined somehow. we aren't going to have f15's manufactured on the basis of slight comparative advantage. you need to either abolish nations and governments or accede to the globalist goal of one world government if you wish to see the nation-state dissappear.

second, with regard to globalism and free trade, i realize they aren't precisely the same thing. but, if anything, the globalist elite prefer more restrictions than the ideological free trade dogma. i find this similar to the no true scotsman argument. they aren't for complete 100% unregulated trade, therefore they aren't for free trade.

aside from currency manipulation (strong dollar policy, weak dollar policy, dollar pegging in developing world, etc.), and some reciprocal low tariffs, and a few political boycotts, a few subsidies for agriculture, and a tax code full of unequal treatments, in what other ways is your ideal of free trade different from the modern globalist form of free trade?

that would be an interesting subject to explore.