That's fine. In my mind it's actually not that important of an issue. Trade was one of my areas of focus and for a large country like the US completely abandoning trade would only cause something like a 2% hit to GDP, once the economy re-equilibrated. (It's extremely important to small countries, though.)

Your point gets at the implied (and generally false) assumption underlying these arguments, which is that property rights are reasonably enforced in all of the economies.

I'd be fine with someone taking the position "It's not good to trade with _______, because the way the government is subsidizing the export makes this basically a product of slavery."

Or, for the case you described, "It's not good to trade with _______, because the exports are derived from rampant property crimes."