non-coercive

You specifically brought up that the GPL is a non-coercive agent for freedom.

I personally think it's more complicated than either view, but it's worth considering that in a larger context, non-violence rarely means non-coercive.

How the hell would this be ethical, no matter how consensual and non-coercive it is?

All society is some form of collectivism:) As is often the case with disruptive innovation, I think the solution is something non-obvious and non-coercive, more bottom-up than top-down.

Above all, though, what's immoral is to make illegal any non-coercive acquisition of data.

By leading to the creation of arbitrary laws that limit non-coercive access to information.

I could sit here and explain to you how none of the above post says GPL is a non-coercive agent.

You've actually created a situation where only those who provide value to others get to choose society's direction - and only in non-coercive ways.

Consensual, non-coercive between, say, a 70-year-old and a 9-year-old is fine?

One involves non-coercive mutual consent (a signed agreement), the other doesn't.

Liberty can never be non-coercive, and despite claims of otherwhise in this discussion, none has provided an example of a liberty that can be enforced non-coercivly.

Island is pro-drug (magic mushrooms), pro-sex, pro-enjoying life, sensible use of sperm banks, sensible non-coercive education, playful response to religion.

My goal was to find a counter-example to the statement that "All consensual and non-coercive transactions are ethical.".

You've answered your own question: "consensual, non-coercive"

So my question is this: Given that the majority of people here seem to be so liberal-minded that they consider (consensual, non-coercive) polygamy to be fine, is there anything that anyone will still look at and say "That's actually morally wrong"?