I agree.
> No it isn't, because absent laws people tend to do things like break your knees with a lead pipe if you're a union organizer.
You keep dragging things out further and further. Am I led to believe that without laws supporting unions, breaking knees suddenly becomes legal?
> So you agree there's an informational asymmetry, but you put the burden on the weaker party in the transaction to be responsible for the calculation of the costs and effects of it (despite agreeing they don't know as much about it)
I'm not putting the burden on them. The burden is on them, as a pure matter of fact. Every worker is ultimately responsible for the risk they put upon themselves. If they get injured or killed, they are the ones harmed. They're the ones who have to make the call.
Of course an employer that hides information on safety hazards or is otherwise negligent is liable for endangering others.
None of this is specific to trade. You're talking about fraud, coercion and extortion and all kinds of things. It's going nowhere. Of course nobody willfully "consents" to being endangered, defrauded or extorted.
> Again, no thank you. I'd rather have society put together so that people don't need to be an expert in every safety critical expertise in order to avoid harm from others.
You arguing against straw man libertarian, not me.