It was a simpler example, for which there isn't a one-to-one mapping with the actual case. The point of the example was that when you turn a choice into an obligation, you don't get more freedom, even if the obligation is to do something that, on average, maximizes freedom.
We can try another example. Let's say you own a nice sound system. You want to move into a nice new apartment, where they like things quiet after 10 PM. If the manager is able to ask you to agree not to use your sound system after 10 PM, are you a) less free, because you are able to give up a particular freedom, or b) more free, because you can agree to abide by a set of rules in order to get something you want? I think it's clearly b), and I'd even question whether or not you 'own' a sound system if you are unable to agree to turn it off sometimes.
You seem to be making an absolutist argument about freedom here, but that's missing the point.
In your example: the answer is that the 10pm rule is a good thing if it means people have a choice of whether to live with late-night noise or not, and a bad thing if it means that no one does (because all available apartments have the rule, or don't). The proper balance of "freedom" (understood in the colloquial sense of being able to do what you want most of the time) depends on the state of the market, and has absolutely nothing to do with an abstract idea of "Freedom" that must be maximized in all cases.
In the linked article, the court found that in practice (because essentially all employers use these non-compete clauses) collective freedom would be better served by eliminating them. It's the equivalent of all the landlords in a city enforcing a 10pm noise rule, and it sucks.
It's the equivalent of all the landlords in a city enforcing a 10pm noise rule, and it sucks.
This seems like a fairly obvious flaw in your argument -- if noncompetes are such a bad idea, why are they so common? I'm not saying that their ubiquity makes them a good idea. I'm asking why nobody has gotten around to starting a company that avoids using them, and then gotten lots of great developers who work for less money because their freedom is maximized. If I found out that every landlord in my city enforced that rule, I would work hundred-hour weeks raising the money to buy an apartment that didn't enforce the rule, knowing I could charge a huge premium and get lots of residents.
As I've said in other contexts, most complaints about a purely capitalist system can be boiled down to a business plan -- and if nobody has done it, and you won't do it, what does that say about your complaint?
We can try another example. Let's say you own a nice sound system. You want to move into a nice new apartment, where they like things quiet after 10 PM. If the manager is able to ask you to agree not to use your sound system after 10 PM, are you a) less free, because you are able to give up a particular freedom, or b) more free, because you can agree to abide by a set of rules in order to get something you want? I think it's clearly b), and I'd even question whether or not you 'own' a sound system if you are unable to agree to turn it off sometimes.