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?
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.