It's a fact that they are regressive. That is in no way an opinion. Someone making $1 million per year and someone making $20,000 per year both pay the same tariff. There is no discrimination between earners like there is with progressive taxes.

They are anti-consumer in the sense that they raise prices without offering more or better goods in return. Sure you may try to muscle in some roundabout logic that concludes that tariffs will punish the consumer into using their money the way you want them to, such as buying overpriced goods from domestic producers, but history has shown again and again that only free trade produces net benefits. Tariffs just obsfucate the damage.

For instance, the EU guarantees European farmers a certain minimum price for agricultural goods. This price is 200% above market price. The effect is that every European consumer has reduced purchasing power because they must pay 200% more than they need to for food, African farmers are kept in poverty because they can't sell their goods to EU consumers, and the only people who win is the extremely small percentage of people in the EU who farm.

In this way, they are factually anti consumer.

> It's a fact that they are regressive.

It is not. You use a non gradiated tariff as a bad assumption. Good luck with whatever.

EDIT: I might have misunderstood the context of some of my parent comments, I do not believe that progressive tax brackets should be increase the tax rate on the entire income, just of the income over a certain limit.

> They are anti-consumer in the sense that they raise prices without offering more or better goods in return.

There is also to say that economy of scale is real, so (within bounds, I wouldn't meddle in guessing numbers) it is reasonable to ask the company making 10 billion per year to be more efficient per-dollar than a 2-persons shop.

Regarding the EU I believe you are missing the point. Farming in the EU (outside of the Netherlands apparently) is almost by definition going to be a terrible business profit wise in an unregulated market; too little to automate too high cost of living for workers.

The regulations in place exist because of an explicit consideration that keeping those industries alive (especially regional traditional products) is something with a value in and of itself.

For sure many regulations have serious issues and some of them are plainly wrong, but arguing for anarcho-capitalism to me sound as reasonable as arguing for communism.