Although reduction in trade barriers can help bring benefits, it may cause conflicts with the domestic producers of the society. These conflicts are presented in arguments.
Firstly is the Infant-Industry argument. New industries that enter the market often argue for temporary trade restrictions, so they are able to survive long enough to be competitive. This protects them from more established firms, putting them at the edge of being defeated. However, after that period of protection, they are matured to compete internationally. On the other hand, older industries argue for temporary trade restrictions to keep up and adapt to new trade rules and environments. Conflicts such as these are difficult to maintain in practice. Governments are forced to pick out profitable industries, which do not exceed costs of protection if they wish to apply the restrictions successfully. Costs of protections result in more deadweight losses, and are to be avoided, especially with politically tied industries, which are in turn, much more difficult to be removed off the temporary protection of trade restrictions. .
Secondly is the Unfair-Competition Argument. Referring to the reduction of trade barriers, free trade is desirable only of all nations comply and submit to the rules and regulations. But if industries in various nations do not follow suit, it is definitely unfair to expect nations and industries to compete internationally. Suppose the Malaysian Gold industry is subsidized off its tax by the government. The Australian Gold industry might subject this as unfair that they should also be given subsidies by the Australian government to compete further. But in the actual scenario, they could buy gold from Malaysia for a subsidized price that is relatively cheaper. However, Australian producers suffer losses, but their consumers gain from the low prices of gold. In addition, this does not exceed the producers" losses.