[superuser2]

As I understand it, you propose a right to "conservation of prosperity": if something is prosperous now, we should use force to ensure that it remains so in perpetuity, and are morally responsible for the harm that comes from not doing so.

How do you decide what to freeze, and how do you decide which year to freeze it in?

I could argue we had a similar moral imperative to prevent the destruction of the livelihoods of horse-drawn carriage drivers. What if you had made this argument successfully in 1890 and the auto industry was never allowed to exist in the first place? Would you acknowledge the same responsibility for the nonexistence of Detroit that you assign to free trade now?

[kapitza]

I believe we have a right to a government that does everything possible to support, cherish, protect and uplift its citizens -- whether by defending them from crime, or preserving their livelihoods.

Yes, I'm aware that this makes me a nutball -- some kind of communist or fascist or something. I used to be a libertarian, if that makes you feel better.

If horses were citizens, I'd definitely preserve the carriages. They're not, and the carriage drivers could become chauffeurs. Not that there was a plan, but that would have been a fine plan.

Sometimes things are going so well, you don't need a plan. Other times...

[superuser2]

>and the carriage drivers could become chauffeurs

And the people in Detroit could move somewhere with productive economic activity. Why are they different from carriage drivers?

FWIW I used to be a protectionist. I became disillusioned with it when the choices around which things to protect, what to protect them from (foreign competition vs. automation), which status quo to lock in, and where we draw the boundaries of units that ought to be protected from each other, started to seem arbitrary.

I remember a particularly compelling line of argument from an economics textbook: okay, the US should make its own cars, but why stop at the national border? Why not have every state make its own cars? Think of all the jobs that would create! An auto industry in every state! But why stop at state? Why not make people sell their cars and trade to locally manufactured ones at every county line? Because it'd be a huge waste.

And, of course, many of the things we propose to protect "disrupted" something else not so long ago, sometimes in living memory. If we protect truckers from autonomous vehicles, for example, we will have to explain to the laid off railroad guys why we did not protect them from the truckers. Why we did not protect the longshoremen from the shipping container and crane.

It's the government's responsibility to take care of its citizens, absolutely.

Making people do work that they know is inferior to what could be done by machines (or foreigners) just seems like an extremely degrading way to go about that. I'd much rather see a good chunk of the output of "license to print money" operations taxed and redistributed.