If someone offers something, and the other person accepts it because they perceive it as being better than any other option they have available to them, then it's voluntary. No court of law, consisting of a jury of your peers, would agree that a contract entered into by a worker, because the worker needed the income to eat, is not voluntary, and that's why you could never get your political project implemented through the judicial process.
>>So what?
So your argumewnt is bogus. I'm explaining that the fact that people are forced to do difficult things to survive does not make the situation authoritarian. Much more is required for the situation to be classified as authoritarian.
>>ndirectly forcing someone give up their freedom to work instead of other social structures is a political choice, to the benefit of the propertied, not some commandment by god or whatever.
This is a blatant lie: no one is forcing any one to give up their freedom to work. This is just a baseless victimhood narrative and false accusation against millions of innocent people.
>>It might? It's not up to the propertied class alone to decide what's a right and what's not.
Well if you're incredibly narcissistic, then you justify robbing people.