You're right, it would be better if there was fair competition and we could let the market decide things. But that's not the status quo. The status quo is one party (China) has extremely protectionist policies and encourages IP theft from other countries. Because of this, companies in other countries are at a disadvantage competing in the Chinese market and against Chinese companies. So then you have to decide: is letting Chinese companies win the competition via unfair practices better or worse than engaging in tit-for-tat and levelling the playing field a bit?
Protectionism hurts the ultimate consumer of the product. If domestic companies require patronage from the state in order to remain in business, they should not exist, no matter the conditions in some other jurisdiction.
> Protectionism hurts the ultimate consumer of the product.
In times of good economies, open borders, and peace, it might. But it also incurs significant risk if there are disruptions.
> If domestic companies require patronage from the state in order to remain in business, they should not exist, no matter the conditions in some other jurisdiction.
DJI and similar Chinese tech companies are benefiting from very significant protectionism, themselves. Should they not exist?
"Patronage from state" is a sensationalist way of putting us trying to avoid being overly dependent on a hostile dictatorship. Yes, the consumer will pay more but in this case it's worth it. It's like paying more for something because of insurance costs.
`Protectionism hurts the ultimate consumer of the product.`
So do lots of other things, and you need to balance competing sources of harm against each other. Allowing foreign companies benefitting from protectionist policies drive domestic industries out of business leaves consumers vulnerable to several other harms. You can't just do everything in a vacuum without considering the context because it's the "right thing to do" and expect the best outcomes.
