> I doubt John Locke would agree that liberty could mean to be suddenly left high and dry with no notice that would likely cost you money.

Its been a while since I’ve read Locke, but my impression was that he would agree with that. (Not that I would, to be sure.)

What makes you think he wouldn’t?

He wrote about ideals but was not an idealist nor ideologue, and in fact was very pragmatic in nature. That’s possibly his nature or from his work as a doctor. What also stems from that, and his religious outlook, is that his ideas were to serve humans better and promote their good and benefit.

Hence, I doubt he’d find a giant company using its negotiating power - and not forgetting its other legal shenanigans (most relevant in this case would be trying to prevent unions[1] forming) - that necessitates harm to an individual through a “consensual” contract to be part of his idea of what liberty looks like. Would you negotiate such a contract for yourself? I doubt it. Can an Uber driver negotiate it away? I doubt that even more. In fact, there is no negotiation, it’s a take it or leave it offer.

In short, he didn’t seem interested in allowing powerful interests to crush individual interests based on some ill-conceived notion that it’s a free market or that there is true freedom to consent in any meaningful way.

[1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-lyft-and-others-launch-cam...

You can be left exactly as high and as dry as the contract you signed stipulates, and if you have a dispute we have a pretty good system to work that out.

Fair contracts need negotiating power on both sides.

Equal negotiating power

I’m not sure about equal as life can be messy (you have a cash flow problem and need to sell now, the buyer knows that - can that be equal?) but certainly fair should be a good start.

As a practical matter, that doesn't work when the power imbalance is so great that one side doesn't have a realistic way to negotiate the contract.

I.e. if the best job that someone can negotiate is one where they are being exploited or abused, then that doesn't make the exploitation/abuse any more just.

The trouble is that most people will become homeless if they don't get a job. As long as there is a steady rate of unemployment, there are people that can't meaningfully decline whatever conditions are in their employment contract.

And that's what this pretty good system doesn't account for: the inherent coercion of a fundamentally unjust system