… for when person A states that person B has the option of taking an unreasonable alternative with respect to what they are concerned about; most commonly in the form of:
“you don’t like how X is done, then eliminate it from your life” and
“if you want X to be different, then YOU become the leader of the country/world and change it”
The when person B is incapable of doing the stated alternative, it is supposedly proof that they have no right to complain or maintain their opinion (IOW person B is wrong).
I’m not sure that it’s an actual specifically defined approach to arguing, or if it’s just generally stating an ugly truth to someone on the side of a loosing team. I see examples of it all the time, such as when someone complains about the government. Invariably you’ll eventually hear “if you don’t like the provincial/state sales tax, then get elected governor or premeir and change it”. Also when people have concerns about local issues I’ll hear “if you don’t like the terrible service and incompetance at the only bank in town, then move somewhere else”.
Presenting such an ultimatum isn’t really giving a person a Hobson’s choice since an alternative does exist… but the amount of work to do, hoops to jump, time and money involved, and luck needed to actually do the alternative for ridiculously little gain can be completely unreasonable for some people.
For example there’s no way an uneducated 22 year-old man of middle eastern decent and faith -who was born in the US- is gonna be able anytime in the next few decades (if ever) to get elected president so he can relax US policy towards Iraq so his grandmother can come visit him… nor is reasonable to expect a single mom just barely making ends meet living out of a friend’s basement to pull the kids out of school and move 500 miles away just to get better bank service when the only one in town sucks - but there’s no law saying that either of the above two options aren’t available for these two people.
Is there terminology for stating options of this nature to an opponant? And is it reasonable to present someone with an unreasonable choice as a tactic?
Hmmm, one can just read the first paragraph and the last line of the OP to get at the question asked. Not ment to invite opinion - but to see what such tactics are called and whether they have validity. 
Dictum Tonius Robbinsorum
Welllllll,
I’d thought of that one, and it just may end up being the closest term for what I’m after.
But I’m thinking of not so much saying that option “B” is the only option; there may also be options “C,D,E”… but when option “B” is realsitically the only effective option, but a person falsely puts it on the par of all the other options as for practicality. Or when one maintains that until you act out option “B”, you can’t claim that there is a problem.
For example I could say that
“nobody wants to buy my brand of “ass&onion” - flavoured mouthwash, and I can’t make a living selling it”.
someone else: Did you ask every person in the country and fly to every country on Earth to find out?.. no?.. then you don’t know that and you’re just whining."
True, I don’t scientifically know for certain that I’m right, but the odds of success are so low and the cost so high that following through on this option “B” is ridiculous… but someone else can still claim to be right.
Jesus Christ KidCharlemagne, I was halfway through typing that into google before I recognized the name and got the joke :D:D!!!
Ok, now it’s time to be serious. I don’t think there is a strict logical fallacy in what you presented but it does sound like a line of debate in which a logical fallacy has previously been introduced. For instance:
If you don’t like how x is done, then eliminate it from your life
To determine what, if any, fallacy is exploited here you have to know what is actually up for debate. Not liking how something is done is not a point for LOGICAL debate.
BTW, if the debate is something like “X causes more deaths than it’s purported to save,” then the fallacy that first comes to mind would be “Straw Man”
Here is a great resource on fallacies:
http://gncurtis.home.texas.net/
Ahhh, I think I’ve come close using the reference you linked 
. Though I may not have described it as clearly as possible, it looks like I’ve been thinking of a slurry of Tu Quoque and circumstantial ad hominem; a combination of turning the argument back against the accuser and attacking them (rather sneakily) using an “irrelevant personal circumstance surrounding the opponent as evidence against their position”.
So the basis of my assertion that “Ass&Onion” mouthwash inventor and salesman isn’t a viable career was glossed over and the irrelevant fact that I’m unable to personally interview every human being and conduct an international poll costing millions and taking years to complete was used as evidence against my position by that prick someone else.
I guess it’s the same type of diversion used by fans of a TV show when they say “if the series is that bad no one’s forcing you to watch it” to someone who complains about the show - The fact that I’m free to watch something else doesn’t mean that series hasn’t gone down the crapper recently… and in a similar sense the circumstances holding someone back from moving somewhere else or getting elected governor to personally fix a problem aren’t evidence against their position or that their concerns are invalid/unjustified.