I have been thinking a bit more about the Don Boudreaux post I quoted from recently. I take his point to be that free trade within nations (e.g., within the U.S.) is generally accepted as having economic benefits, so critics of free trade between nations (e.g., WTO trade liberalization) have the burden to explain why the same benefits do not exist in that situation. Generally speaking, I agree with his point. But here's what I'm wondering. One big difference between the "within" nations and the "between" nations scenarios is that within nations there is significant labor mobility. If an Ohio factory closes and moves to Alabama, workers could move to Alabama themselves. By contrast, if that factory moved to Mexico or China, moving would be much more difficult. The current situation for the "four freedoms" could be described as follows:
Trade Within Nations: Movement of goods, services, capital and labor are all very free.
Trade Between Nations: Movement of goods and capital are fairly free, services are somewhat free, and labor is not very free at all.
Given this difference, is the argument for free trade in goods stronger within nations than it is between nations? That is, does the absence of labor mobility mean that the benefits of free trade between nations are less than the benefits of free trade within nations? Or does that not matter at all, and the benefits of free trade will be the same for each? (Assuming of course you think there is a benefit from free trade, which I recognize that not everyone does).
