That's helpful in explaining your and my disconnect. I suspect that you are I are pretty much talking to each other at this point, which is more than fine with me, as I find it quite interesting.
> For the individual who gets told that Mongolians from Sweden pay an extra 3% if they [wear] shiny shoes, it may seem unfair.
It may seem unfair to that person, but if it's wrong (meaning not borne out by the facts/stats), then another insurance or credit card company will almost surely come along and offer Swedish Mongolian shiny-shoe wearers deals at par, or even at a discount, to what the 3% surcharge company offers. In other words, if a company significantly overprices a given risk, that's just bad business or bad judgement, but it's not unfair. Similarly, if they underprice the risk, that's also not unfair, just bad business/judgement. Wherever significant price deviations are present and leaving money on the table, a competitor will come in to address the consumer need. And if they don't, then that's just the market price, which to me is the fair price.
So I think I agree with your assesment that in my mind fair is a synonym, or at least an extremely close analog, to non-coercive.
What you call price "gouging" (such as increasing the price of food, water, or gasoline in a time of shortage), I call an efficient market allocating scarce resources to those in the greatest need (as demonstrated by being willing to pay the highest price). If you mandate that the price of gasoline be $1.00 in the weeks following Katrina, how much gasoline do you think will get sold? Almost none would be my prediction. Instead, you'd find massive hoarding and gas stations closing rather than selling gas at a loss. How does that help anyone?
Instead, if you let the price float to $5, $6, then those who need gas will buy it; those that don't will have no incentive (in fact a disincentive) to hoard it, and those who might be just driving around aimlessly for amusement will temporarily stop doing that, conserving that very limited resource. Seems VASTLY more efficient to me, and seems perfectly fair as well.
Similarly, if you arrive at a monopoly through market forces, I think that's perfectly fine. If you are AWARDED a monopoly by the state, then that monopoly must be a tightly regulated monopoly by that same state. But I don't see any reason why Google shouldn't be allowed to reap the rewards of conquering search if they eventually do so. Or why Virgin Galactic couldn't operate a de-facto monopoly on space tourism, or any other example of where a market-derived monopoly is inherently unfair. To me, the state taking away an earned monopoly is what would be unfair.
I have really enjoyed our discussion, though I suspect we're at the point of understanding pretty well what each other is saying and probably unlikely for you to agree that $5-$6 gas is "fair" post Katrina, and for me to think it is, and agree to disagree after a thought-provoking discussion.