you've defined options such that a global increase appears to be essentially impossible.

I don't believe I've defined options in any particularly unusual way. What specifically do you take issue with? There is a sense in which options can globally increase - economic growth and technological progress can globally increase options (giving people the option to do things that were not possible before). Institutions that tend to encourage such progress within a society are valuable. Legislation that limits options requires very compelling evidence that it will encourage such progress to be justified in my opinion - when in doubt, err on the side of not restricting options would be my default position.

Beyond that, a large corporation has more power to restrict people than, say, a small township's government, including that it's easier to move to a new town than escape a global corporation. There are a lot more ways to coerce people than physical force; bribery is pretty effective, too.

Bribery is not coercion, it's an economic exchange. It differs from other economic exchanges in that it generally involves a non state actor exchanging money or other goods for favourable treatment under the coercive powers of a representative of the state. I can not think of an example of being restricted by a corporation except when they have acted in concert with the state and have had the backing of the state's threat of force. I don't really know what you mean by 'escaping' a global corporation - what kind of escape do you have in mind beyond terminating a contract?

So you do agree that by intervening with force to prevent a non-state actor from restricting options, the state can increase global options vs. non-interference?

If a state intervenes with force to prevent the use of force by a non-state actor (the police intervening in a mugging for example) then it is creating an environment that is more conducive to productive economic activity and so allows for a global increase in options. I think the set of actions a non state actor can take to reduce options that do not involve force that the state can beneficially interfere in is either empty or very small though. I'm also not convinced that a state is the only institution that can play this beneficial role, though there are limited historical examples of alternatives.

You've drawn an arbitrary line, and the fact that plenty of societies far on the wrong side of your line have prospered suggests that it isn't immediately obvious that your placement of the line is the correct one.

I'd disagree that the line is arbitrary. It's certainly less arbitrary than the standard generally applied when deciding what laws to pass. It's not immediately obvious that it's the right place it's true. That's why I consider the large amount of evidence that demonstrate greater economic growth and prosperity in societies that are closer to the line to be one of the key insights from modern economics.

Ironically the argument you are making here is almost exactly a mirror image of my argument against net-neutrality legislation. The fact that the Internet exists as it does without any current legislation suggests that it isn't immediately obvious that your desire to move the line is the correct one. There seems to me to be little evidence that would suggest that in this one special case legislation would be beneficial to outweigh the large amounts of evidence that restrictive legislation is generally a net negative and a barrier to innovation.