Once again I find a solidly constructed capitalistic argument in Hayek's opinion of employment and independence. He demonstrates the numerous counts of opportunity cost in the long-run of seeking employment, rather than the entrepreneurial decisions of the independent individuals who have intertwined work with their personal lives.
I don't see work being intertwined with personal interests to be a terribly appealing ideal, however, when weighing it against the long-run opportunity costs of many who do not make this decision, one being demonstrated on pg (124)..."The existence of a multiplicity of opportunities for employment ultimately depends on the existence of independent individuals who can take the initiative in the continuous process of re-forming and redirecting organizations."
This opportunity is not available to the employee (High-salaried "Yes" men) who works a 9-5pm shift and are molded into a corporate culture, paid according to the evaluation of his/her peers and superiors, and does not make decisions on his own, and therefore does not wholly develop a project ingenuity of his own. The consequences of this in institutions of corporate culture and government in many cases are inevitably some form of corrupt coercion.
One point is very valid, that even in a capitalistic structure, coercion takes on the form of the views of those who allow it and implement it. If they are fair, just men, who consider the interworkings of the individual concerns of society, then this is good for social equality and contains merit. Generally, institutions are corrupted by the men who power them.