Poppycock. I didn't specify HOW nations would manage such risks; you simply presumed the heavy hand of regulation. Congress could just as easily specify conduct of markets in offsets, mitigation, and validation can do that job just fine. In fact, I own a patent in such a business method.
You "free" traders are a bunch of lightweight ideologues, oversimplifying "comparative advantage" in an economy to the point of suicide. It was one of von Mises' biggest flaws. Without completely harmonized legislation, comparative advantage cannot function; it is a negation of representative government.
But perhaps I did misspeak. Yes, sometimes commie and free trade go hand in hand.
That's because true communist ideologues do not believe in nations. That effectively precludes representative government.
But capitalist and freedom-loving go hand in hand with free trade.
No, they don't. Treating corporations as equivalent to natural persons negates natural law competition among states in corporate governance, giving a structural advantage to replacing labor with capital, as abetted by fractional reserve banking. It was a crooked deal snuck into the 14th Amendment by Bingham and Conkling.
As I said, "lightweights."
But I know the type (not to accuse you of being one) - the free trade hating “conservative”. If left to their own devices they would have trade barriers for county to county not mention country to country.
I suspect so. The local jurisdiction would suffer in some respects and prosper in others. You would preclude them that freedom to discover their accountability for foolish protectionism. OTOH, they might just survive a natural disaster or other non-uniform event because they chose to pay higher prices in order to retain critical local industrial infrastructure (for example). You would preclude them that option.
The mistake you make is to presume "all other things being equal" in a non-uniform world. It is the unfortunate requirement to oversimplify reality in order to construct a model by which to describe it. It looks optimal in the purely economic sense, and can even perform that way in the short run, but there are also hazards that go unaccounted by the necessity of simplifying the model.
The power of hormones and catalysts in chemical reactions or biological systems as elements that are otherwise negated for purposes of the model is a good example of such oversimplification. That is why natural law competition among jurisdictions is a better system for managing uncertainties in an unpredictable world.
The smaller is the jurisdiction the smaller is the mistake. In a uniform world full of uncertainties, mistakes can grow to the point of global catastrophe. Hence, allowing for local sovereignty is a way of confining such mistakes which might even promote by competition the principles you prefer. This was the underlying argument for Federalism in the first place.
Although you have created the illusion that you are a sophisticated protectionist, as opposed to the regular kind of protectionist, you are all equally misguided. You all are essentially statists. You believe the individual is subservient to the state. Protectionism denies freedom when it is an act of the state. Free trade is the absence of the government from the trade relations between free people.