Sounds like you’re using the consumer to give it an undeserved innocence.
Rewarding despotism & lawlessness with market access and allowing enablers of it to go untouched is not something that is correct. When trade is discussed, national security also has an important place within that discussion - even if it might counter the wishes of consumers unaware of the effects.
The only “economic disadvantage” of mention would be that our workforce doesn’t have to “know its place” for fear of retribution by businesses tightly integrated with the government. China, and other countries that have received work formerly done by First World countries, have that “advantage” of lesser freedom for all. Rewarding that lower level of freedom only encourages efforts to lower the US to the global level.
No.
Economic liberty is even more important than the freedom of speech or the right to bear arms. Without the ability to earn a living and dispose of property without the permission of government, the other freedoms are indefensible.