Original sentence: A third individual (the State) then uses the force of law to amend the contract (in this case, to the advantage of the State and the company and to the disadvantage of the employee, who has removed from him the ability to strike).According to free market principles, the State is brought into existance by a group of individuals to protect the freedom that they naturally possess.From a free market perspective, the Taylor Law and its activation are an example of the State persuing its own interest, seperate from the interest of the people who agreed to bring it into existance.From a free market point of view, the anti-strike provisions of the Taylor Law are direct State interference in a private contract between two individuals.However, there are an almost infinite range of acts which are in the interest of the State which require arbitrarily depriving citizens of a degree of freedom, without the consent of the citizen and to his detrement; the fact that the State may benefit greatly from an action does not in any way make it correct.It is certainly in the interest of the State to amend the contract in this way, since strikes disrupt city commerce and increase city expenses.One individual (the transport company) offers a contract to another individual (the worker).The problem is how then to prevent that State becoming a Frankenstein and depriving those individuals of the freedoms that the State was created to protect (Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom, page 2).They both fully understand the contact and voluntarily assent to it