A popular objection to free trade is when a nation's trading partner is perceived as having to apply mercantilist policies, then trade relations is seen as uneven. Thus the popular oversimplified political justification is to go tit-for-tat via "fair or managed trade" which is euphemism for implied protectionism.
This we say is wrong. Even under such conditions Free Trade should be a unilateral policy. Why?
As Professor Don Boudreaux lucidly explains, (bold highlights mine)
By erecting tariffs that dampen competition, mercantilism encourages home producers to become unresponsive and uncreative. By issuing subsidies paid for with higher taxes, government debt, or distortionary monetary policies, mercantilism helps exporters only by inflicting more-sizable damages on the nation’s economy writ large. By turning the national government into a bazaar for the buying and selling of monopoly privileges, mercantilism deflects entrepreneurial energies away from building better mousetraps and into building politically advantageous political connections. And by raising prices in the home market, mercantilism makes consumers poorer as well as makes producers who rely upon imported inputs less efficient.
Well said.
[update: Earlier what I thought as saving as in a draft, I mistakenly published-thus the garbled commentary]
