—Public / Private Spectrum—
If you have a dinner party at your house, is it inherently frustrating to kick someone out of your house for unfair reasons? Is it unethical?

The problem with this, is that unfair judgement can count as frustration, but this frustration is happening within a greater scope that in a private space such as your own home, is more important. A right to your own sanctuary, to privacy, is more important.

Relative to Yogg Virtue Ethics, it is unethical. Relative to Yogg Law, the Anti-Abuse Principle, it is permissible in the sense that it could constitute abuse to try and prevent you from removing them from your dinner party.
A right to a private sanctuary makes less sense for something like a public restaurant. Though privately owned, it functions as a public space, and directly affects more people's interests in a way more inherent than your private home. In a private home, the person most affected by discrimination, is the home owner, not the person discriminated against.

In a public restaurant, the opposite is true.
The interest of someone wanting to stay at a dinner party, may be irrational if it resorts to violence, as they should have a private dwelling of their own.

The protection of Interest Fulfillment implies as previously explained, a Right to Privacy and a Private Sanctuary to fulfill your own interests without frustrating against others.

Whereas in a public restaurant, this logic stops making sense. There is no exact line here, it is a spectrum of what the difference between a public space and private space are, but the difference is in how different people's interests are weighed. A public restaurant would be weighed differently than a private club, for example. Although, if such a private club was integral to a community, this could change things.

Very personal spaces are private. Very open spaces, are public. Spaces that are integral to a community or become inherently wrapped up in other's interests, such as spaces that provide services to people for profit, businesses, are public.
 

—Ethics of Gated Communities—
Similar to discrimination in open spaces, ethnostates and other gated large-scale communities create inherent frustration through discrimination and prejudice against people for reasons not relevant to Interests. This results in enforcement of frustration due to misaligned interests, as well as a lack of virtue such as respect and fairness, on behalf of the perpetrators of the unjustifiable exclusion.

Racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice, are hence an inherent frustration against people for irrational reasons, and for reasons that treat them as a mere member of some undefinable group, rather than as an individual who should be judged as such.

The interests of a criminal, or drug trafficker, or gang member, may be irrational interests that should be defended against, but that does not make the interests of a random individual irrational or invalid, simply due to them being of the same creed.

--Factionalism destroys Freedom of Movement--
For the most part, discrimination due to creed is justified not based on genuine and justifiable mistrust; but rather ignorance, and factionalism. It is for this reason that so-called freedom of association can quickly turn into instead, a freedom from those separate from your tribe, and a freedom to inherently frustrate, to discriminate, against others.

If Interests are to have value themselves, the right to freedom of movement of people should be protected. People should not be limited to live in the community they were born in, and communities should be more open to letting new people in; it is only then that people can be truly free to fulfill their own ends.
For these reasons, because of the importance of freedom of movement, the value of interests, and the unjustifiability of prejudice, ethnostates, ethno-nationalism, and the overall vices of tribalism, are ultimately against what is ethical.
 

—Theory of Local Freedoms—
Adding on to what constitutes abuse, in the setting of open or semi-public spaces, or even private spaces with common mutual trust, is the idea that inherent frustration when present in larger societies is condemnable, is also unjustifiable in local spaces.

--The Unethics of Censorship--
To be censored for honest criticism, is unethical relative to the value of Interests, and the value of Truth. It represents an inherent frustration against someone's non-frustrating interests. To allow for such a form of censorship, is to allow for some people's interests to be given protection from criticism, in a way that may be irrational.
This same logic applies in local circumstances, it is not purely beholden to large societies or to governments. If you're in a community and they try to kick you out for criticizing their leader, that is bad in and of itself. This grants an idea of Local Freedoms, freedoms that apply in local spaces as well as open, public spaces.
True freedom thus grants Local Freedoms, since the value of the Fulfillment of Interests implies protection from abuse, and violation of these local freedoms is itself a form of abuse.

--Alien Invasion Example--
If a group of aliens came down to Earth and claimed that thousands of years ago they created the Earth and have been continuously sustaining and developing the Earth and thus claim property ownership over the entirety of Earth (but not the humans themselves) and thus want to evict us from it, and force us from our homes, this act would be acceptable under the NAP yet it is clearly an unethical abuse of power, completely unfair, and abusive. Humans would be well within their rights to defend themselves.
Relative to interests this is clearly the case, the aliens have interests misaligned with the humans and are inherently frustrating upon the humans.

--Stripping of Contentment--
If someone is enjoying the fruits of their labor, and becomes content with their situation, stripping the person of their goods is bad.
The consistency of circumstances entails a rational inherent interest in the circumstance, granting an entitlement to not being stripped of the goods via inherently frustrating transgression.
If someone enjoys the ability to speak their mind on some platform, they should be able to continue with that and should not have their ability to interact on a platform taken away arbitrarily or exploitatively; as the taking away itself is bad regardless of the medium it is exercised through.

--Conclusions of Local Freedoms--
If some action is good or bad, its morality is based on the content of the action and not purely in the medium with which it's carried out.
Censorship is bad, whether performed through violence, or enforced via property.
Censorship is wrong because the content of the action is itself wrong, not the way it is enforced.
 

—Why Market Domination is Inevitable—
Any market if left without enough regulation, will naturally create centralization through cumulative advantage, and said centralization will not be destroyed unless it screws up majorly. The problem with this, is it allows dominant producers to abuse their consumers and workers as already explained, within a threshold.
For industries that have a naturally higher barrier to entry, or a low barrier to entry for competition but a high barrier to entry for meaningful competition, perfect competition and near-perfect competition may be impossible which will result in dominant producers forming, creating the same problem as full-on monopolies, to a slightly lesser extent.
Libertarian theory assumes markets select for quality, but network science and empirical data imply they select for path dependance. In the real world, large firms will have an advantage over smaller firms by virtue of being large. This is path dependence, where consumers are more likely to choose the large firm more often, because their services will be of more consistent quality.

--Market Share Growth is Self-Reinforcing-
Market domination is simply a predictable consequence of feedback loops. Advantages such as capital, brand recognition, and network effects, compound over time allowing for increases in bargaining power, visibility, reduced marginal costs, etc. All of which, allows for greater growth and attracts more customers and talent. It is a cycle that causes market share to ever increase, until the business completely messes something up.
This is a problem, because in-order for such a cycle to be prevented, for rightful fear of centralization, competition needs to happen. Unfortunately, entry into a market is not binary. While small competitors may or may not enter easily, the dominant firm's accumulated advantages can naturally, or deliberately, prevent entrants from forming meaningful competition.

--Centralization leads to Widespread Abuse--
Markets do not select for the best product in the abstract; instead they select for the product that is good enough given historical adoption. Once a firm becomes the default, quality improvements by competitors face diminishing returns, while quality degradation by the dominant firm faces a delayed and weakened punishment. Advantages become too accumulated and competition too reduced. This is Market Centralization.
The moment market share is centralized to specific companies, regardless of whether domination is by an absolute monopoly or not, a firm can exert monopoly-like power while retaining nominal competitors. All a firm needs, is a decisive market share.
This is not a problem because it 'raises prices', it is a problem because it undermines consent. When exit is costly and alternatives are functionally inferior, transactions become structurally forced to follow the decisions of the dominant firm. This destroys consensual transactions, and is actually the exact same reason why monopolies can abuse their consumers.
The problem is simple. A lack of competition creates a lack of functional alternatives, creating the ability for a dominant producer to enforce their own interests against their consumers.
Markets work best when business bends the knee to their workers and consumers, unfortunately centralization creates a scenario where service industry forces consumers and especially workers to serve them and their every want, and not the other way around.
This is the heart of interest frustration in the economy.

--Why Markets do not Self-Correct--
The assumption that markets will self-correct relies on the idea that sufficient harm will cause greater competition.  This is true to an extent, but once market power is centralized, the conditions required for correction are systematically undermined and beholden to the interest asymmetry created by the relationship between producers, consumers, and last, workers.
Market correction therefore does not fail because actors behave irrationally, but because rational behavior under asymmetric power conditions reinforces the dominant position. What emerges is not a temporary deviation from market logic, but its predictable outcome.
 

—Entangled Property by Entangled Interests—
If you are employed as part of some large-scale job, it is worth saying that a significant set of your interests are wrapped up in your job. Employment, and the specific business you are employed to, explicitly become conduits of your rational interests.
If you are to own what you make, in an Interest Property sense, as when you make something your interests get wrapped up in what you make, then that gives a conclusion that has interesting consequences: That you have an ethical claim over the decisions of the business you yourself are employed to, when it affects you.
This represents a Right over Influence, a right over that which inherently affects you, and this comes right out of the value of Interests.

--Layoffs are Inherently Frustration against Entangled Interests--
If you have a job and are suddenly laid off, this can cause significant harm to your own ability to fulfill your interests, and all interests directly related to your job, are immediately frustrated.
If a job includes long-term commitment and long working hours, decisions at the firm you work at are suddenly directly entangled with your own interests.
This is Entangled Property. Instead of personal property which is private to an individual, property used in a profit-generating setting through tools and devices operated by multiple people, which is called Productive Property, and sometimes just Private Property or Private Productive Property. This kind of property usage creates an entanglement of people's interests.

--Productive Property operated by multiple people creates Entangled Interests--
This productive property is the means of the production of goods, and as used here is entangled property when multiple people's lives are inherently affected, and hence this applies to employment.
In a limited sense, and in a way relevant to this concept, to be unfairly laid off of a job is thus not only inherent frustration against you, but a violation against the conduit of your interests.
For interests to have value is for you to own your interests. To own your interests is to have some say over that which affects you personally.
 

—Worker and Consumer Ownership—
Entangled Property and Abuse, Interest Frustration, Eventual Centralizations..
There is a solution to these problems, the solution is Interest Alignment.
The fundamental problem here is that a firm is owned by a single person, or small group of people, who's interests take priority over their employees and consumers.

--Interests must be Aligned--
Producers, workers, and consumers, are the three main groups. For companies that are publicly traded, this also includes shareholders. Producers and shareholders taking precedence over workers and consumers, and this time the shareholders have significant market power as a side-effect of being part of the means to profit.
The most common targets of market abuse can be identified as the Workers and Consumers. This logic can be used thus, as an ethical justification of worker and consumer ownership of the means of production, in the sense of worker-owned cooperative enterprise and consumer coops.
The best way to align the interests of workers and producers together, is simply for the workers to be the producers, or for the workers to have ownership of the firm itself. The ethical and rational imperative is to grant ownership with those whose interests are most entangled with the firm, give workers and consumers a real stake and voice in the means of production.

--Worker-Owned Cooperatives have Advantages--
Empirically, around the world; Worker-Owned Cooperatives, enterprise under the legal ownership and control of their employees, has been shown to result in greater stability during economic downturn, as well as a persistence to lower wages during a crisis in a way more consensual as the workers themselves are the ones choosing to lower wages, and instead of simply doing an unconsensual layoff as is common in other forms of enterprise.
This results in a more stable market environment less prone to bust and boom cycles than traditional capitalist enterprise; capitalist in the sense of individuals maintaining sole ownership of a business through contracts.

--Worker-Ownership is better than Centralized Command Economies--
One thing this logic acts against, is Centralized Command Economies. A Command Economy is an economy where the means of production and exchange is operated at a significant scale by the State, or some other form of government or central power.
This is fundamentally different from worker and consumer ownership, and such an economy has a poor track-record around the world, especially for State-owned production, as this removes the competition-driven market forces that allow for markets to align interests at all. This damages the ability to decide what should be produced and how.
To simply nationalize industry naively, and put it all under centralized control of a single entity with likely poor management, is not a good strategy. The market is a tool, not an enemy of Interests.
 

—The Conclusion—
Worker and Consumer Ownership, along with acts against Discrimination and an ensurance of fair treatment of consumers and workers alike, is the imperative given by Interest Alignment.