Yes, that means I want to coerce people to provide service. On the other hand, if they don't want it, they can always stop providing that service entirely.
I can't imagine why your view of utopia requires that people with money get to choose who they transact with but people with goods and services must transact with anyone who has money. Can you explain why that's fair or equitable?
You're pointing toward a world where I can say "I won't buy from X because Y" but nobody can say "I won't sell to X because Y".
If a seller doesn't believe in mask wearing, a buyer should be able to abstain from them. If a buyer doesn't believe in mask wearing, a seller should be able to abstain from them.
Buyers and sellers are temporary roles we play, not classes of people with different freedoms.
> I can't imagine why your view of utopia requires that people with money get to choose who they transact with but people with goods and services must transact with anyone who has money. Can you explain why that's fair or equitable?
This is not entirely an accurate description of my view. I think that also, people with money should not get to choose who they transact with on the basis of not directly related properties; the difference is not "buy vs sell" but one of scale. That is, I also think that for instance a large corporate chain shouldn't be able to choose to not buy from somebody on the basis of political allegiance. "Offering a service or product to the market" and "Acquiring a service or product from the market" are symmetrical.
No, you can always choose not to interact at all. You can always choose not to offer a service or product, or not to use a service or product. I just think that the larger the scale at which you decide what to do, the less interests that are not directly related should be permitted to matter.
