However, methinks that he has had a little semantic trouble with this sentence...
If there is no such thing as a free lunch—how can there be such a thing as free trade?
In terms of the "free lunch", Martin links to this definition:
The economic theory, and also the lay opinion, that whatever goods and services are provided, they must be paid for by someone - i.e. you don't get something for nothing.
Now, there are several meanings of the word "free"; in the above quote, "free" is quite obviously being used in the sense of "gratis", "complimentary", "costing nothing".
However, when we talk about "free trade", that is not what is meant at all. It is not about whether the trade costs anything, but whether the participants are free to do it. We are using "free" in the sense of "able to act at will", "not hampered", "not under compulsion or restraint".
There may, of course, be a cost element in debating whether or not free trade is, in fact, "free": trade tariffs or regulations may hamper trade or provide a restraint. But then that is not free trade anymore, is it? And that is rather the point.
Does that answer your question, Martin? Or, since you must be aware of this distinction, were you trying to make another point entirely?