The only "safe guard" libertarianism brings to the table here is that a person must sign on the dotted line first. Not exactly rock solid when you also allow and encourages the inevitable concentration of wealth through private property at the same time.

Private property IS coercion.

Your safeguard is the choice to act or not act. That's a feature of a free individual. Not a bug. Choices don't become invalid or "wrong" because some people have been wildly successful with theirs while others haven't.

What exactly makes wealth such a sticking point in these arguments against libertarianism? It's not considered wrong to be "too" intelligent, or "too" handsome, or "too" strong. But for some reason using these qualities and abilities to obtain money, supposedly in excess of some "moral number" like $1B, results in being "too" wealthy and thus "wrong". Wealth and private property are a representation of value earned through choices made. I would think that one would want more value in his life not less. In a free market, value is generated by choosing to vote with one's dollar, gold bar, or bitcoin. Private property is NOT coercion. Coercion implies you own nothing and owe everything.

An agreement under coercion, direct or indirect, can't be reduced into some intentionally sterile and neutral "choice" without any context. When someone try to do that, it suggests that one is uncomfortable with that fact and prefer to rationalize it.

Either one has the agency to make and agree to a contract or one does not. There is no in-between. If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive, then we come to the conclusion that no normal human being is ever free. That the only people who truly have choices are clairvoyants and that the rest are as unqualified and naive as children. Obviously, I reject that.

While choice is not without context, that context is individually determined by the one's interests and rational faculties. One doesn't know what he doesn't know. However a person still has the freedom to to take a calculated risk if he deems the payoff worth it. That a person doesn't need to know everything to exercise his agency is what demonstrates choice exists and is not simply the rationalization that you claim it is.

As far as ownership is concerned, why in your view is that direct or indirect coercion? Why is buying or owning something force?

> If one holds that every agreement is either directly or indirectly coercive

You've made weird deductions and extrapolated on top of that then you reject that caricature you've created. That has never been stated.

It would be helpful if we can try to keep this in plain English.

> Either one has the agency to make and agree to a contract or one does not

People can have both agency and still use that agency into making an indirectly coerced "choice". The fact remain that it's coerced, and thus not particularly free as in freedom.

Then you're using a convoluted definition of "coercion"

How are you defining coercion or assessing its presence in a given agreement? Ignorance? Being in want? Genetic differences?

When, in your view, are people not coerced?

I'll give you examples:

Weren't the 19th century coal miners coerced by economic necessity to accept life threateningly bad working conditions?

Weren't the parents of the child laborers coerced by economic necessity?

How is this in any way shape or form even hard to understand and admit to?

> When, in your view, are people not coerced?

When one's general well being and access to necessities are not dependent on accepting the terms of the agreement.