Those things might improve life for a lot of people. But "freeing them to make rational choices"?
If the alternative to staying in your current job is starving and/or getting evicted, your labor agreement isn't a voluntary, mutually beneficial transaction anymore. For example, a lot of the population works unfulfilling, abusive, underpaid jobs which they only go to because they can't afford to miss a paycheck. Since in a free market, voluntary and mutual transactions are an underlying assumption, labor markets without comprehensive welfare hence aren't free.
There seems to be a general pattern that "creating a freer market" always only seems to matter in the places where rich people would benefit from it.