Freedom in Agriculture

If I am doing a transaction with a person/organization, and if anyone is trying to stop that by any unfair means, I consider the people/organizations who are trying to stop that transaction as criminals. However they have full freedom to convince the person/organization transacting with me, to not transact with me. They have full right even to offer bribes to the other person. But, they do not have any right to threaten them to not transact with me. Those whoever threatening or stopping the transaction by any other way are criminals in my point of view (irrespective of whether the law of the land says it or not).

If I am a farmer and if I can find someone who is ready to purchase my produce for a mutually agreeable price, and if anyone tries to stop that transaction by unfair means, they are criminals in my point of view. 

Fair means to stop the transaction means, atleast one party should be better off by cancelling the transaction [Other party can be worse off]. Unfair means, neither party would be better off by cancelling the transaction. 

Few examples of the fair means to stop the transactions are,

Offering higher price to me, so that I can sell the produce to you rather than the other person.

Offering lesser price to the other person, so that they would buy the produce from you rather than from me. 

Giving some additional goodies to either of them, like free transport, free loading/unloading or anything that is typically done before or after the purchase.

Few states legislated that, the sell price must not be less than the minimum support price. If anyone buys for lesser price, they would be imprisoned. 

If the Government is ready to buy from everyone for minimum support price, then why do they need to legislate that? Why will someone sell for a lesser price, when the government buys from the farmers at a higher price? That legislation will only be (mis)used to blackmail few vendors, and never required for ethical reasons. 

If the Government is not going to buy from everyone, and if vendors are not ready to buy at government set price because of lack of market, what would happen? If one has to follow the legislation, then the farmers have to burn all their produce because no one was willing to buy that. For the ignorant people, there are many farmers, who burnt their farm without plucking anything from that (for different reasons).

If they are given the option to sell for a lesser price, atleast they would get some amount rather than zero. 

Even when the government is ready to buy from everyone for Minimum Support Price, still, few farmers may sell for a lesser price to few vendors for other reasons. The cost of plucking, transport to the nearest market etc., are significant in the cost to the farmer. If the vendor is ready to take care of all those, then it makes sense to the farmer to sell it to that vendor for a lesser price rather than seemingly higher Minimum Support Price.

Each individual knows what is best for them. It is a crime to interfere in others' matters. The maximum thing that one can do is, convincing the seemingly losing party.