Laws restrict freedom, that's their entire point. Whether a society, political ideology etc deems those limitations in freedom necessary is a different story.
I see what you did there... which is, you jumped from the particular restrictions of the H1-B visa to the generality of "laws". The point the parent ultimately points to is that creating a situation where your visa ends when a particular company says it ends makes you beholden to that company in a fashion which would be different than if, say, you visa ended at a fixed time.
All law may to an extend restrict people's freedom of actions but a law which facilitates indentured servitude would create a situation of greater concrete unfreedom than a law restricting a person from going to some fraction of the globe.
Indentured servitude is a system in which someone who has no present capital writes a contract with someone to exchange future labor for present capital (in an historical context, passage on ships if I recall correctly). If you're issued an H1-Bs you don't have to work at that company. Why on earth would anyone take an H1-B visa if they thought they could get a better job in their home country?
Are you saying that foreigners cannot think for themselves and that a slow, innovation-lacking, bureaucratic government is smarter and knows better than them?
I see what you did there... which is, you jumped from the particular restrictions of the H1-B visa to the generality of "laws". The point the parent ultimately points to is that creating a situation where your visa ends when a particular company says it ends makes you beholden to that company in a fashion which would be different than if, say, you visa ended at a fixed time.
All law may to an extend restrict people's freedom of actions but a law which facilitates indentured servitude would create a situation of greater concrete unfreedom than a law restricting a person from going to some fraction of the globe.