ancaps and problem with contracts

its funny how ancaps will say that laws and documents assigned by politicians dont change anything, but will worship property laws with the same argument: "if both parties agreed, then its fair".

would you see as fair an hipotetical situation where one person controls all the potable water in the planet and people need to work for him, as a slave, to get water? both parties agree but that dont seem fair.

of course the option people agree with is the best for them between the possible options, this doenst mean that both are free, and that the best option in general is to keep respecting the contract.

if we want to actually see how free people are we should look at their material conditions, what will happen if they do one thing and not the other, and how that could affect their lifes. not just how much contracts are respected or not.

just because you will not get shot with a gun if you dont accept a contract doesnt mean that you are freely choosing between options.

once you study the material conditions of people you will see that we have no option rather than sell our time for just barely enough so we can continue existing, and even that is not guaranteed. everyone has fear to lose their job and accept doing morally wrong things so they can continue employed. we dont have control of our own lives. we cant make our own entreprises. we arent free at all.

*to the 'ACkshuAlly' people in here, there is counter examples to that, but for the vast majority of people thats not the case.