Nope. It is people like you that are morally wrong in enabling oligopoly power and calling it completely consensual.
If you have 4 choices, all of them bad, is that really a consensual transaction? No. It isn't.
There is a finite amount of wireless companies capable of operating in a region due to the natural monopoly of the fact two parties interfere with each other when using the same band.
There's a clear moral difference between four bad options reached voluntarily, and one good option reached by forcing people. Who really believes that the way to achieve the best outcome, in society, is to forcefully tell people what they have to do?
Forcing people to do things against their will can never result in a better outcome than respecting people's rights. And in this age, anyone can educate themselves about why.
Alright. I'll buy up all the land surrounding where you live and deny you access to the world. It'll be purely a voluntary transaction between me, your neighbors, and the city. You weren't consulted but based on your moral belief structure you believe that is acceptable so you shouldn't complain when I wall you in and don't let you leave.
No? You don't like that? Well, it was a purely voluntary transaction on par with what you suggested.
Natural monopolies exist in the real world. Pretend they don't at your peril.
I didn't say that any voluntary transaction is legitimate. Rights can be a complex issue, but your example was solved long ago in several ways, such as with easements.
You won't be able to disprove the legitimacy of the concept of rights with a trite example, it would require a more serious discussion than we'll have here.
Two groups of cell towers using the same piece of spectrum interfere with each other in the same way as those walls.
The fact you don't understand what the walls scenario is identical to what you are stating is okay is depressing.
It is only when anyone is able to produce a good and distribute it, given sufficient capital, that your mental model is appropriate. No one can simultaneously control the same spectrum in the same geographic area without creating interference with each other.
Retail stores? Sure, what you are saying makes sense.
Sometimes "forcing" people is the best thing to do. That's how you solve social dilemmas: situation when allowing every agent involved to run free cause terrible outcomes even if it's temporary profitable for most/all involved (or sum of utilities is the highest for some time).
You ignoring this principle and claiming moral high ground makes you appear as a troll hence all the downvotes you are collecting.
You have two bad choices here. You can either admit your philosophy has holes, or you can explain how the labor movement resulted in a worse outcome than respecting employers' rights.
If you have 4 choices, all of them bad, is that really a consensual transaction? No. It isn't.
There is a finite amount of wireless companies capable of operating in a region due to the natural monopoly of the fact two parties interfere with each other when using the same band.