Your version of B is actually distinct because it still requires the individual to explicitly limit his choices beforehand. It would still leave open an option

Your version of B is actually distinct because it still requires the individual to explicitly limit his choices beforehand. It would still leave open an option for the following to happen, A farmer after a poor harvest faces the prospect of starving to death, goes to a local landlord for money in exchange for which he becomes a bonded labourer for life. The next season he tries to run away. But the government, which operates under principle A, catches him and forces him to return to slavery. I am uncomfortable with the government actually doing this and this is why i reject A. There is an argument made in the context of minimum wage that it actually hurts the people whose work value is less than the minimum wage as employers wont hire them anymore. I am not arguing for or against minimum wage, but want to point out a counterargument which might work in the example given above. When the landlord knows that if one person refuses slave labor in exchange for money, he can hire some else. But with a law forbidding such contracts in place, the landlord doesn't have this option. In effect, the law enhances the bargaining power of the labourer by restricting his options. In effect, this is the same as the as argument pointed out in the thread above of there being a Prisoner's Dilemma.