Which is fine (freedom from government interference and to prevent fraud and coercion only), but you should realize that.

And I still think your view is way too simplistic. If you don't think that government should intervene to prevent market failure than who should? It seems like you prefer market failure (and its negative repercussions) to any governmental interference (even if the government could deal with such market failure with no negative repercussions). Is this accurate? That is a normative view, but it seems flawed and problematic as it is not economically efficient, and causes a lot of pain and suffering, and allows peoples rights to be trampled on by private power.

I am also curious about how you feel about monopolies.There are two rationales for why monopolies are bad (off the top of my head): (1) They are not economically efficient, and (2) They are an accumulation of economic power that is exploitative. Monopoly is a market failure, so you don't think the government should intervene for reason #1 clearly.

But your point about preventing "fraud and coercion" might mean that you are willing to have intervention for reason #2. I think this is interesting, because economic coercion is typically legally fine. Would you want a system where economic coercion is illegal as well? How would you police it? Wouldn't this just cause a bigger government/regulatory structure than fixing the market failure in the first place? Or are you completely fine with economic coercion?

If you are completely fine with economic coercion, then I go back to my point from several threads ago: you only care about governmental power and not power in general on how it affects individual freedom and liberty. Again, that is why your conception of freedom and liberty is limited.

And your point on public accommodation laws is a fine normative view. But I am making a descriptive argument. The Jim Crow South as a historical example belies the idea that the free market automatically corrects for this kind of thing. I guess you would argue that African Americans were not having their freedom and liberty infringed on by this because it was private actors, but again I think that is a very limited conception of what liberty and freedom mean.

Note, I do agree that public accommodation laws do impact the freedom of association. But the point is that the world was not at a null-point before such laws with perfect freedom and liberty. That ignores African Americans. Thus there is some liberty infringement in order to ensure other people have liberty and freedom. I know there are line-drawing problems (like the cake shop situation).