> Now, some may consider this limiting of freedoms beneficial and desirable, but it's limiting anyway.
You have an odd definition of "freedom"; who is more free: the un-unionized warehouse worker who is hired by the week by a shell temp agency, or the unionized warehouse worker who can negotiate a sane contract, decent wage, and sue in cases of abuse.
No, my definition of freedom is not "odd", yours is. You are confusing "free" with "comfortable" - you can be perfectly comfortable (highly paid, well fed and cared for, respected, etc.) and be a slave (look into the ancient world - famous Aesop, for example, was a slave), or be completely free and be a penniless hobo. Freedom has nothing to do with salary. You can say you would gladly give up your freedom for a decent wage and union lawyers - fine, it's your choice. But you can not make this choice for anybody else. That's their freedom.
You have an odd definition of "freedom"; who is more free: the un-unionized warehouse worker who is hired by the week by a shell temp agency, or the unionized warehouse worker who can negotiate a sane contract, decent wage, and sue in cases of abuse.