Two or three points - the first your comment about Hegel's  
"agricultural revolution drives poor agricultural workers off  
their lands".  
  
Agricultural revolution is a phrase that hides the reality. When  
the landlord found that he could make more money with a few  
shepherds and some large herds of sheep, he kicked the people out  
and Goldsmith was able to write "The Deserted Village".  
  
When these same people descended on the cities or took a cruise  
ship to North America, it was not because of any kind of  
revolution, but because Britain was owned by a relatively few  
landholders who could do what they like with their land including  
kicking off anyone they wished.  
  
In the first half of the 19th century, a little more than 2,500  
landholders owned Britain. One notes that in the 21st century  
some 70% of the land is owned by about 6,000 landholders ("Who  
Owns Britain" - Cahill).  
  
This might look like an improvement, but perhaps the traditional  
landholders have smaller amounts of valuable land (the Duke of  
Westminster owns Piccadilly and Belgravia - perhaps a tad more  
worthwhile than an equivalent piece of the Scottish Highlands).  
  
Another point of issue is not really Hegel's - it's kind of a  
revealed truth. That is, the idea that "a modern economic system  
produces more than it can consume " therefore it must get rid of  
workers, along with sending the surplus overseas.  
  
The "modern economic system" produces nothing. Echoing  John  
Medaille's point that Portugal produces nothing - traders do,  a  
modern economic system produces nothing - people do.  
  
Now, I know of no-one who keeps expending exertion on producing  
something that no-one wants. There is no surplus from ordinary  
production. If the higgling of the market begins to overfill the  
warehouse shelves, the factory has some 3 day weekends or has a  
Sale. If some bare spots appear on the shelves, one adds some  
extra hours to the workweek.  
  
The relationship between the colony and the mother country is  
political. The movement of goods between the two is again the  
trade of people cooperating with people. Free trade is simply a  
desirable thing that improves the welfare of all traders.  
  
Harry Pollard