Your analysis is extremely one-sided in favor of producers and against consumers.
In economics, the difference between the maximum a consumer is willing to pay for a certain good and the the actual price charged is called "consumer surplus". For example, if I buy an apple for $0.50 but the maximum I would have payed is $1.25, I enjoy $0.75 of consumer surplus.
Essentially what you are proposing is that consumer surplus should always optimally be zero. That in a perfect world, every producer would charge each consumer exactly their maximum willingness to pay for each good.
But just as there is consumer surplus, there is producer surplus. Producer surplus is the difference between the minimum price they would be willing to sell a good for and the actual price they sell that good for. So, as an apple producer, if the lowest price I could profitably sell an apple for is $0.10 but I actually sell if for $0.50, I enjoy $0.40 of consumer surplus.
In traditional free-market models, at an equilibrium price there is a mixture of consumer and producer surplus. Consumers buy things for a bit less than their maximum willingness to pay, and producers sell things for a bit more than their rock-bottom just-marginally-profitable price.
In your model of perfect price discrimination, there is a huge shift in surplus from consumers to producers. Yes, it's efficient in terms of allocation. But there's a huge loss in utility for consumers.
This is true for any case in isolation, but for all consumers in aggregate there is no other way to do things that ensures an increase in everyone's wealth.
Any kind of flattened pricing structure will always harm some consumers for the benefit of others in a sufficiently large market. If I'm willing to pay £12 for X, you're willing to pay £8, and the producer is asking for a flat £10 because people like me find price discrimination morally abhorrent, then: I get the utility from having X plus a bit more from the £2 kickback; the producer isn't fulfilling his goal of profit maximisation and has incurred an opportunity cost of my £2 + your £8 = £10; and you get nothing. I'm the only winner, and the £2's worth of economic value I've gained by enforcing an unfair pricing structure is less than the sum of the value I've deprived you and the producer of - my behaviour is tantamount to stealing a small slice of yours and the producers combined utility and burning the rest.
The only way around this is to find a way to set price equal to true valuation on an individual basis. Of course, if you allow your model to not be Pareto efficient ("there is no change that could be made to benefit someone without harming someone else") then there are much more efficient ways to steal wealth than flat pricing.
In economics, the difference between the maximum a consumer is willing to pay for a certain good and the the actual price charged is called "consumer surplus". For example, if I buy an apple for $0.50 but the maximum I would have payed is $1.25, I enjoy $0.75 of consumer surplus.
Essentially what you are proposing is that consumer surplus should always optimally be zero. That in a perfect world, every producer would charge each consumer exactly their maximum willingness to pay for each good.
But just as there is consumer surplus, there is producer surplus. Producer surplus is the difference between the minimum price they would be willing to sell a good for and the actual price they sell that good for. So, as an apple producer, if the lowest price I could profitably sell an apple for is $0.10 but I actually sell if for $0.50, I enjoy $0.40 of consumer surplus.
In traditional free-market models, at an equilibrium price there is a mixture of consumer and producer surplus. Consumers buy things for a bit less than their maximum willingness to pay, and producers sell things for a bit more than their rock-bottom just-marginally-profitable price.
In your model of perfect price discrimination, there is a huge shift in surplus from consumers to producers. Yes, it's efficient in terms of allocation. But there's a huge loss in utility for consumers.