[discojesus]

You might argue that employment is optional, but this is not the case in practice especially if you have a family to support.

OK so let's engage in a thought experiment - we make employment optional, so you don't have to work even if you have a family to support. But now, in order to get the resources to support your family, you have to force someone else to do something they don't want to do.

So protecting you from the "slavery" of employment necessarily implies some degree of slavery for some third party, because the resources needed to support your family don't come from nowhere. That's really not fair to the third party, don't you think?