I am making a practical argument and you are making an ethical/moral argument of it.

But for your argument to be complete I think you need at least some example of someone doing something unethical or wrong because of the policy. The policy exists today so hypothetical arguments fall a bit flat.

To illistrate my point, consider that it is legal (as far as I can tell -- not a lawyer) to walk around in California with a sword as long as it's neither concealed nor being brandished. But it doesn't make sense to argue that the lack of a law against carrying a sword is unethical because of what people might do. Theoretically people might do horrible things while carrying a sword; but empirically they do not, because few people even have swords, fewer still walk around with them, and approximately zero deaths result from it.

There are people on non competes that are not being compensated with the full salary they would have been getting. To me that is unethical.

It is not a hypothetical situation, unless you are trying to claim that no company anywhere is using a non compete, in which case I just need to pull up the associated paperwork for pretty much every offer letter I've gotten. Alternatively I can go and poll just my social circle and compile the list of non competes.

Anything less than the full salary is unethical to me, and I'm partial to arguments that it should be more as the employee under the non compete is losing out on career growth and raises

> There are people on non competes that are not being compensated with the full salary they would have been getting. To me that is unethical.

They are also making that money while doing nothing.

They are not making money while doing nothing. They are making money by not using their knowledge, so that their previous employer can prevent other entrants into their market from benefiting from said employees skills.