&gt; I most certainly do try to find these &quot;they&#x27;re making it strictly worse than had they not intervened&quot; arguments, but the popular expositions never make them<p>But the author is not making any good arguments in favor of mutually advantageous exploitation either, and there are good ones. He is also guilty of making naive arguments! This very topic has been debated at length by philosophers. Why reduce it to ridiculing the other side while not showing any clear, educated thought on the author&#x27;s part, either?<p>&gt; You really don&#x27;t have to go far to find a protectionist argument that&#x27;s 100% &quot;dey took are jerbs&quot;<p>And you really don&#x27;t have to go far to find arguments like, &quot;we&#x27;re da job craters!&quot; and &quot;we&#x27;re making the world a better place, woooo!&quot; (which is the level of arguments the author is making)