The case for free trade

argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the

best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting

its case. And it will finally either convince the general pub-

lic that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear think-

ing on the subject becomes next to impossible.

In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest,

there is a second main factor that spawns new economic

fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men

to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups."

"Economics in One Lesson", at p.3

http://www.hacer.org/pdf/Hazlitt00.pdf

The effect of a protective tariff say on "our" sugar industry is to force all sugar consumers to pay more, so that a small minority can be given the privilege of being paid above the market rate for their product.

This only begs the question why everyone else should not be entitled to an equal privilege. If they were, it would spell the end of human society, and thus protectionism is intrinsically anti-social.

Protectionists almost always talk in the royal plural. "We need to think what kind of country we want." What they mean is "The majority need to be forced to pay for the kind of country a privileged few want."

The pretensions of protectionists to make society more productive or fair are false. Protectionism by its very logic only ever succeeds in feathering the nests of vested interests while simultaneously striking a blow against the principles underlying freedom and society at home and abroad.