>This is a voluntary exchange and an action.

And yet it is necessarily conditioned; it takes place within a context in which many of these interactions happen simply because people on at least one end must engage in it in order to survive. Liberal philosophy, perhaps best espoused by Mises, aims for complete ignorance of the causes leading up to an action, an "infinite chain" as Spinoza said. For if they were not ignorant then they would realise that the conditions of a particular action, a particular choice, are not freely determined at all. It would be the end of liberal philosophy. Lordon, on the other hand, makes an important point from Spinoza and Marx: the difference between consent and coercion is in effect a matter of judgement, whether one's mind experiences a joyful affect from this chain of actions and conditions, or whether one's mind experiences a sad affect.

>Yes, it is. All voluntary interaction are ethically good/correct.

What is a "voluntary interaction"? Does something count as "voluntary" in the case where the interaction is wholly dependent on factors determined outside of one's control? Of course that's inescapable, but if we're only focusing on the final decision being made then the same standard of "voulntary" can be used, for example, when someone puts a gun to your head and demands you do X, and if you don't then they shoot you. You do, in a technical sense, have a "voluntary" choice to make here - it is, in fact, the conditions of the choice which make us uneasy with this.

>The opposite would be to participate in involuntary interactions and force people around

It has been argued that the market may be considered creating a dystopia without a despot; the idea that there must be some dedicated group is very strange. Alienation, as it is laid out by Marx, is actually to be chained down to something other than oneself, in this case, chained down to "the market", abstract labour and the sad/joyful affects created. by (neo)liberal business management hierarchies.

>You can easily see that money is a coordination+relocation tool.

I can; that doesn't mean that I automatically approve of its use, as the utility of an object or action is insufficient for me to make a moral comment.

>I know this would be "impossible" by marxist analysis, since wealth would be a zero-sum game

Not at all; Marx doesn't consider capitalism a zero-sum game, nor is his theory of value incompatible with the theory of subjective value. Marx's ignorance of marginalism isn't a very convincing point given how Marxist and post-Marxist scholars have considered both neoclassical and Austrian economics in their writings.

>Central banking and forcing the usage of that ever inflating currency is basically melting people's money away, preventing savings and longer term thinking (on average).

This is absolute rubbish, it has nothing to do with central banking and everything to do with the social psychology of capitalism, which contrary to the 19th c. could not afford to only use the sad affect of depriving one's means of material reproduction and now instead focuses on the joyful affects of consumption to induce "voluntary servitude"; consider how most arguments for removing the minimum wage or increasing work hours appeal to the joyful affects, in a rather devious (consciously or not) psychological trick. Our identity as consumers is exploited over our identity as workers to push (neo)liberal ideology. Unfortunately you have done no different in your comment.