Of course there is a freedom argument to it. The freedom to contract line of reasoning is faulty because it ignores relative bargaining power or desparation. W

Of course there is a freedom argument to it. The freedom to contract line of reasoning is faulty because it ignores relative bargaining power or desparation. When you are worried you won't be able to pay the rent you are not likely to care much about non-competes and you will get yourself into a bad situation. To use your extreme example, people that did give themselves into slavery (and yes this used to happen during roman times), usually did it because of hunger and desparation. And because living in a country that has widespread slavery it was impossible to get paid for most labor. Certainly they would have preferred if Rome had banned slavery and even had a minimum wage. Then they would be able to do similar work but be paid for it. I doubt they would have worried much that banning slavery limited their freedom to contract. In fact they would practically have much more freedom in a world that banned slavery, as they would be ordinary employees that would be free to do as they wished in their free time. Well thought out worker protection laws do improve freedom for ordinary workers despite the technical reduction to the freedom to contract. The "freedom to contract" argument tends to get peddled by people and entities that have all the bargaining power.