This speaks to something I think Drew has tried to point out a few times.
\r\n\r\nWe're willing to impose tarrifs for various sorts of environmental causes. Say, to offset externalities such as pollution and the like. Why is it not permissible to hold that standards such as universal sufferage, human rights, labor unions, healthcare, or public education shouldn't be similarly universally recognized, and charge a tarrif on imports reflective of the status of these acheivements in the exporting country? It's a community-standards basis of imports.
\r\n\r\nOf course, there's the question of what could or could not be appropriate for such charges. Would it be appropriate for Italy to charge a 10% tarrif in support of the Roman Catholic Church? Or middle-eastern states a tarrif supporting Islam? Could the US Bible Belt lobby for anti-vice tarrifs against Holland? Where do you draw the line?
\r\n\r\nIn balance, I think I'd be in favor of a mechanism which would balance costs for socially beneficial business costs born by domestic businesses.