Then make the noncompete subject to very specific actions, and compensate the individual for the period of the noncompete at a multiple of present earnings.

If it's worth it for you to deny someone their livelihood, then pay for the privilege.

Yes - that and any client-based operation where an employee can leave and take their clients with them. The Dentistry field is notorious for this; my wife is barred from working in an entire half of the city for several years after the end of her contract.

Even in these cases there's a balance of interests that probably needs to be evaluated. A dentist might be responsible for generating substantially all of the value in their customer relationships, and there might be no good public policy case to support noncompetes for them. On the other hand, an insurance brokerage might as a firm be generating 95% of the value in their customer relationships.

At first glance, I agree with you. But then, customers are quite good on knowing what they get value from, and submiting their choice to the direction of the company they currently contract is a sure way to get suboptimal results.

If they get 95% of the value from the company, they simply won't change business that easily.

If it's the employee generating value and that value includes customer relationships, shouldn't the customers follow that employee to their new job?