“I know it’s bad for you, but it will be better for others. And because we think that’s more important, you have no choice.”
An objectively free society is always better than your subjectively “healthy” society.
This sounds cliche, and it is, but for whatever reason I feel kind of forced to reemphasize the obvious in response to your self-centered-universe-outlook comment.
In a human society, the alternative to government is rule of the strongest. That's how we got nobles and kings, later the great capitalist tycoons and their private police and armies.
> An objectively free society
That does not mean anything. Well, it means you are trying to shove your world-view down everybody else's throat while shutting out any discussion and arguments that you dislike.
If you feel that that's the case then you must realize that what stopped this status quoue wasn't legislation but industrialization and guns. Legislation is always after the fact.
Also, of note, is that guns were invented in China thousands of years ago and it has been a monarchy or dictatorship since then.
Which brings me back to my point, the current status of civilization is due much less to legislation than people say it is.
But if you say that the systematic codification of rules (i.e., laws) matters less than people say it does, we disagree completely. Laws literally defined every major civilization back to the dawn of recorded human history.
For more modern examples, CA's employee rights laws are the reason that SV happened in SV rather than New York, Boston, Chicago, or Detroit--all cities with larger scientific and industrial bases than SF or LA. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act literally made the internet as it exists today possible; without it Youtube, Twitch, Facebook, Twitter, and even Amazon and Google couldn't exist as they do today.
How many people do you think go through the process of signing up for Uber simply to arbitrage the 5-10 minutes gained on HOV lanes?
Compare vs. Uber/Lyfts actual use case - to displace taxis and public transport while under-paying it's drivers.
Free enough I can employ anyone at any wage, to do any job?
Free enough I can employ children and send them down mines?
Free enough I can just come around and take your house?
If you don't like this logic, why do you support the OPs use of the inverse proposition:
"I know it’s bad for all of you, but it will be better for me. And because I think that’s more important, I'd like everyone to agree without directly justifying it.”
Even if you believe in a society of objective freedom, there are multiple senses of freedom. There are "freedoms from" as well as "freedoms to", and you seem to be carefully and convexly limiting the definition of "objectively free society" fits exactly cognitive cognitive volume you want, without regard to how other people might define that concept.
It's really simple, because the inverse doesn't involve legislation, where an individual is forced to do something at risk of life and limb.
Legislation is there either way. It is involved in each case. And as employment (often dangerous) is required for living in the US, it seems pretty weird to view this structural change that only mildly inconvenienced some of the most egregious users of the very broad "contractor" status in existing law, I can't quite work out why this is important.
If one takes issue, plenty of other states to choose from to better experience one’s personal idea of “freedom”.