Resolved: free trade ought to be valued above protectionism

I would like this debate to take place in the traditional LD format as a values debate. I thank my opponet for accepting this debate and look forward to his/ her arguments. A depression is a large-scale decline in production and trade... there is nothing in the nature of a free-market economy to cause such an event. Nathaniel Branden Psychotherapist. Free trade is a principal that positively effects the economy and should be put into practice. Protectionism influences a global recession because without free trade, there is a lessening in demand for foreign items. This leads to layoffs, and eventually a depression. The is nothing in the nature of free trade to cause this. Because I agree with Nathaniel Branden, I stand firmly resolved that free trade ought to be valued above protectionism. In order to set the parameters for today's debate, I offer the following definitions from Merriam Websters online, Google definitions, and Black law dictionary's. Free Trade: the open and unrestricted import and export of goods without government interference. Protectionism: the protection of domestic businesses and industries against foreign competition by imposing high tariffs or quotas. The value for today's debate is quality of life defined as the general welfare of individuals and society's. I chose this value because there is a better quality of life for individual's around the globe when free trade is practiced rather than protectionism. The criterion for today's debate is majority rule defined as the government reflecting the wishes of the majority of people. I chose this criterion because a better quality of life reflects the wishes of individual's. In order to give the people a better quality of the government must act upon the majority's wishes. Observation: whomever can prove that either protectionism or free trade better improves quality of life by reflecting the wishes of the majority will set the standard to win today's debate. Contention 1: free trade prevents war Sub-point A: The Classical Liberals of the nineteenth century were certain that the end of the old Mercantilist system--with its government control of trade and commerce, its bounties (subsidies) and prohibitions on exports and imports--would open wide vistas for improving the material conditions of man through the internationalization of the system of division of labor.ï¿½They also believed that the elimination of barriers to trade and the free intercourse among men would help to significantly reduce if not end the causes of war among nations. The economists of that earlier era had demonstrated the mutual gains from trade that would develop and be reinforced from specialization in productive activities among the people of the world.ï¿½No longer would the material improvements of one nation be viewed as the inevitable cause of the poverty and economic hardships of other countries. Richard M Ebeling Contention 2: Free trade improves the the quality of life Sub-point A: Thousand Villages, is a good example of what we strive to accomplish through alternative fair trade. She said this to Anita Fieguth, an MCC volunteer living and working in Bangladesh at the time: "We are poor distressed women working at Keya Palm to build our lives. By working together we are able to overcome our problems. We become united in one mind. We will send our children to school with our earnings. Also, we are able to purchase our food and clothing. From our profits, we plow our gardens and cultivate crops, we repair our houses and plant trees." At Ten Thousand Villages we want our fair trade to enable artisans like Maya Halder to overcome their problems, to send their children to school, to afford adequate food and clothing and to improve the quality of their lives and their communities. Fair trade gives Maya hope for the future. Contention 3: free trade is in the best interest for the majority Sub-point A: For more than two centuries economists have steadfastly promoted free trade among nations as the best trade policy. Despite this intellectual barrage, many "practical" men and women continue to view the case for free trade skeptically, as an abstract argument made by ivory tower economists with, at most, one foot on terra firma. These practical people "know" that our vital industries must be protected from foreign competition. The divergence between economists' beliefs and those of (even well-educated) men and women on the street seems to arise in making the leap from individuals to nations. In running our personal affairs, virtually all of us exploit the advantages of free trade and comparative advantage without thinking twice. For example, many of us have our shirts laundered at professional cleaners rather than wash and iron them ourselves. Anyone who advised us to "protect" ourselves from the "unfair competition" of low-paid laundry workers by doing our own wash would be thought looney. Common sense tells us to make use of companies that specialize in such work, paying them with money we earn doing something we do better. We understand intuitively that cutting ourselves off from specialists can only lower our standard of living. Alan Blinder to conclude my arguments free trade ought to be valued above protectionism because free trade prevents war, free trade improves quality of life, and because free trade is in the best interest for the majority.