It sounds like you and netcan are both going the same direction, so I'll address both at the same time.

Personally I'm pretty libertarian. I know this is a volatile viewpoint to hold on reddit (less so but still somewhat here). I try to be pragmatic about it, so my viewpoint isn't 100% soundbite-consistent; things need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Welfare: probably not. I think welfare is probably best executed at the state level, much as it is in the US now. The subsidization of some states via others is not addressed by this, and I suspect is largely your point. Certainly within the first world even the meager income of the poor states would be enough to care for their own, perhaps at considerable expense in other aspects. If the issue is "trade embargos or extreme poverty" I'd definitely flex to the (extreme) point that Cuba has, in that they've basically rebuilt their agricultural system from first principles -- it doesn't sound like a walk in the park, but it sounds like they've done well for themselves given their situation.

Unions: abstain. My life experiences are not sufficient to force my opinions about unions on others. My grandfather fed my father from their farmstead in Iowa. As a child food was put on my plate by my father who was either self employed or worked at companies where he could name every employee. I've only ever worked at companies that have healthy meritocracy ecosystems, including my current one where I'm a shareholder. I've never been a shareholder at a unionized company, nor have I ever felt like I've been had by the balls, so to speak, so I can't say how I'd want to be treated in that case.

Ecology/environment: nation trading associations may be useful. Whether the issue at hand is Mediterranean bluefin tuna or hydrocarbon emissions, states/countries financial motivation often collide with worldwide ecological impact. In these cases applying financial pressure looks like the simplest and most direct way to rebalance things. I'm not up on MTBE, but it sounds like a non-financial issue: CA wanted a waiver to go non-oxygenated when ethanol supplies were disrupted. I haven't seen the numbers, but in the absence of numbers I side with California on it: use of non-oxygenated fuel would be seemingly uncommon with the benefit constant and permanent (no MTBE tanks leaking). "Disruption of ethanol supplies" could be considered a financial issue in that they might be under-engineered. Perhaps an association of nations could put financial pressure on a nation that was under-engineering their supplies to ensure that their use of non-oxygenated fuels was minimized.

In summary: I think I may have overstepped the line when I used the word "any" (as is usually the case with that damn word) -- there are certainly valid cases for tempering financial interaction with other entities, particularly when their actions harm you (world eco/enviro being an example). That said, it's important for the health of a capitalist entity that people be able to take the action that best serves them (in the absence of undue harm to others). Furthermore, it's a two-way street, or, a rising tide floats all boats -- China can buy Buicks because Americans can buy T-shirts. To the point of the article, my life is better because of the products I've been able to buy from wherever I choose to, and this holds true regardless of the current state of the economy.