No, what I'm saying is that we shouldn't interpret the scientific evidence in favor of our own ethical preferences. Because neurophysiology or neurobiology have no connection with ethics. And any interpretation to substantiate one's own ethical preferences is always subjective. From the point of view of a living organism, it is justified not only to trade, but also to parasitize, steal or take away by violence. The English royal family has been practicing this for centuries very successfully. Just like the unemployed of California, the vagabonds of India, the politicians of every country. And many more billions of human beings. Not all people understand and accept the benefits of free trade. Not everyone can learn this. Not everyone can withstand the competition. Everyone wants stability, income guarantees, and a monopoly. Therefore, the king of England, the Californian professional beggar or the Indian slacker choose their lifestyle in strict accordance with our human nature. It is the same for all of us. And from its common root grow free trade, parasitism and robbery. Only a small part of people colonized America. The rest are still breeding in Europe. The advantages of the free market are not enough of an argument for them. They don't need free trade. Some kind of trade is enough for them. Because something else is more important to them. The same can be said of the 3 billion Chinese and Indians. They agree to predatory trade and do not change anything in their lives. Note that they have been living like this for thousands of years. The knowledge and practical experience of Western civilization are available and open to them. Conclusion: free cooperation is acceptable only for a part of human beings and not necessarily for everyone. For some, one thing is reasonable, for others another.

Matt mistakenly identifies the concept of rational behavior from the point of view of ethics and science. Scientists do not understand rational behavior as the same as philosophers or economists. Any neurophysiologist will tell you that robbery is also a reasonable reaction of a living organism to the conditions of the external environment. It is impossible to derive ethical norms from biology. This is unscientific and dangerous. It is dangerous, because any ethical concept can be derived from biology. For example, not only the king of England considers robbery ethical, but also millions of Englishmen who gladly feed it.

Now about your question. Ludwig von Mises warned that the replacement of living economic agents with abstract concepts leads to errors in further reasoning. Free trade is one of these abstractions. Free trade is a convenient abstraction that denotes the actions of specific people. To answer your question, you need to replace the trade with people in it. Then your question is: Do people who trade without outside interference thrive?

Such a question requires clarification: what kind of people, what do they sell, etc.? It is not for nothing that they say that the answer to any question is hidden in the question itself, if it is correctly formulated. And the answer is obvious: not all people prosper, not from all transactions, not all their lives. It is easier to draw generalized conclusions than to be guided by them in life.