So if some people support good ideas for simplistic reasons why is that such an interesting topic of discussion? I'm sure there are plenty of people who support mutually-beneficial exploitation for stupid reasons, too.
Yet the author chooses to present the situation as a group of people who want nothing other than to make the world a better place, while stupid hordes get in their way. I can assure you that that's not the true state of affairs, either.
Moreover, why is it good to assume that those who disagree with you do so because they're stupid? Maybe they're not, and maybe they accidentally made a good argument. In any case, trying to understand the merits of the arguments would only enrich you. But the author -- who clearly considers himself to be among the smart ones -- never bothers to look up the literature on this very topic (or, at least, he doesn't cite any), namely mutually advantageous exploitation, opting instead to base it on a much simpler philosophical argument, without consideration for the nuanced discussion of this very issue. So we can assume -- as he and you do -- that his position is driven by nothing more than simplistic arguments.
Whether any particular person makes a naive argument depends on the details of that argument, so I'm not going to delve into that further without a specific example.
I want to defend the general point though, that "If people are making a general class of error in some context, then that class should be pointed out, even if not everyone in that context makes that error." You're right: some people do go far enough to (dubiously) make a case about how eg surge pricing reduces availability. These arguments are the exception, not the norm, and people should be made aware of the more general, mistaken point.
And for what it's worth, I most certainly do try to find these "they're making it strictly worse than had they not intervened" arguments, but the popular expositions never make them. The fact that "oh, someone else makes arguments somewhere that aren't crappy" is no defense, and it does not improve the debate to let bad arguments linger because you prefer they be equated with better ones (which really just confuses things). If someone makes an error, that error should be corrected, whether or not there's an argument for the same conclusion that doesn't.
You really don't have to go far to find a protectionist argument that's 100% "dey took are jerbs" and 0% "this is not the optimal tariff defined in the literature."
> I most certainly do try to find these "they're making it strictly worse than had they not intervened" arguments, but the popular expositions never make them
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's part, either?
> You really don't have to go far to find a protectionist argument that's 100% "dey took are jerbs"
And you really don't have to go far to find arguments like, "we're da job craters!" and "we're making the world a better place, woooo!" (which is the level of arguments the author is making)
Yet the author chooses to present the situation as a group of people who want nothing other than to make the world a better place, while stupid hordes get in their way. I can assure you that that's not the true state of affairs, either.
Moreover, why is it good to assume that those who disagree with you do so because they're stupid? Maybe they're not, and maybe they accidentally made a good argument. In any case, trying to understand the merits of the arguments would only enrich you. But the author -- who clearly considers himself to be among the smart ones -- never bothers to look up the literature on this very topic (or, at least, he doesn't cite any), namely mutually advantageous exploitation, opting instead to base it on a much simpler philosophical argument, without consideration for the nuanced discussion of this very issue. So we can assume -- as he and you do -- that his position is driven by nothing more than simplistic arguments.