The restauranteur example is actually a pretty good one.
He runs it successfully. He decides he's sick of it and doesn't want to run it anymore, perhaps with some anger or bitterness in his heart (tragically) over the way the town treated him or his customers treated him or - maybe - over how somebody who wanted to take it over behaved.
He does not want to "give it to the community" by any means, not by selling it, not by giving it away; he doesn't want it to still be running, because he - perhaps selfishly - doesn't want to have to see it out there.
Or maybe, he honestly thinks its name would be tarnished if run by somebody else, somebody who would change it into something it wasn't, or somebody who would run it with the intent to compete against him in the wider market.
Maybe he's going on to bigger and better things, and has made money on this little restaurant sufficient to open a big chain or few. But the people who want to buy it from him are people who've pissed him off, or worse, whom he fears will use it to undermine his marketing campaign that involves its success.
For whatever reason - foolish or not - he does not want that restaurant to still be run. Does he have no moral right to close it, and say, "No, I will not sell; never again will that restaurant be the one that I ran, under its name and with its menu and themes?"
I say he does have a right to make that choice. Whether it is "moral" or not will, in large part, be demonstrated by whether he could be doing better if he had made the other choice.
He has no right under any moral nor ethical system to tell somebody else that they cannot open a restaurant in that town, and try to replicate his cooking style and themes. They can't use his name or his logos, but they can try to make their own that evoke the same feel (as long as it doesn't come off as trying to fool people into thinking it's the same one).
And that's how the moral righteousness comes to the fore: if he could be doing better, somebody can come in and show him how by doing it.
Anything that undermines his right to control the fate of his property undermines his agency, and that same philosophy could be used to prevent people from starting businesses in the vacuum left behind. The moment you can decide that something must exist so much that you can force people to give up their agency over what they create, you not only limit the impetus to try new things (out of fear they'll become slaves to it, somehow, or otherwise have to answer for their choices in more ways than the natural consequences of mistakes), but you create a mindset that says some external force has a legal right to tell people what they must do "for the good of the community" with their property.
If they can say, "you can't shut that restaurant down," can they also say, "you can't stop offering that dessert?" Can they not say, "You have to offer this new entree?" Why not? Where is the line drawn, and why?
