In actuality there is little difference. People are indoctrinated from birth through advertisements and they do things unconsciously.

You sound like you don’t believe in free will or even personal responsibility. The ability to learn or reason. There is a significant difference between coercion and persuasion. You talk about ends as if the POV at the end is all that matters. Smelling and looking like a dead fish doesn’t mean it’s a dead fish. Claiming some limited end perception is all that matters is a willful ignorance of reality. It’s like saying that with regards to a Turing test whether or not the other end is a computer or human doesn’t matter. Sure it does. The means are what puts the ends in perspective and give it additional, often incredibly important, meaning.

Also I don’t even see any real evidence to your implication that individuals are easily indoctrinated. If it was so simple why then don’t we have 1 government, 1 set of clothing, 1 form of entertainment? I’m bombarded every day with adverts for all kinds of crap I don’t buy just like billions of others. People aren’t sleep walking picking up Coke. Surely in the past hundred years with the advent of mass broadcasting you’d have a single method, a single product which could be pushed on everyone fairly equally. If you claim that natural differences between individuals makes them each susceptible to different messages then I fail to see any reason to worry much about it. You will never stop what you claim to be indoctrination. People advertise everything from religion to snake oil. Ostracism is advertising. Wearing clothing is advertising.

if the thought of leaving never occurs to them are they really free?

Yes because freedom is lack of coerced obligation… not lack of ignorance or responsibility. Besides, people are naturally inquisitive and when left to their own devices the desire to minimize uneasiness will lead them to education. The evidence is obvious and abundant.

This is enforcible in the same manner you fall back on to punish debtors.  Social stigma.

That’s not enforcement but persuasion. He says: "don’t let it happen." You can’t not let it happen without coercion which libertarians are supposed to condemn. He is talking about legitimate actions which can be used to nullify or prevent a contract. That it is related to the inalienability of the will. He claims that voluntary debt theft is the same as voluntary slavery. I pointed out how I think he’s wrong. You can’t technically have voluntary slavery nor is it the same as debt slavery. He’s making a fallacious comparison.

I think you fail to understand that to the human creature there is little to no difference between being compelled to do something and forced to do something.  You cling to the idea of voluntary and involuntary actions when they are hardly discernible.  In the past you’ve fallen back on the tactic of picking the most bombastic, straw man example possible to try to show how I’m wrong.  Something along the lines of "There is a big difference between someone pointing a gun at my back and making me drink a coke and seeing a billboard that says ‘Drink Coke’".

In actuality there is little difference.  People are indoctrinated from birth through advertisements and they do things unconsciously.  One of the worst ways to get people to do things is by pointing a gun at them, you want them to not even think about it.  A "voluntary" slave (I concur with you that it’s an oxymoron) may be free to leave at any time, but if the thought of leaving never occurs to them are they really free?

Besides it’s not practical. Are you really going to go to the individuals who have the money and ask for it back telling them the loan was illegitimate to begin with? If we are talking about a free society there can not be an organization with a monopoly on force, justice and law which attempts to forbid such contracts from being created in the first place.

This is enforcible in the same manner you fall back on to punish debtors.  Social stigma.  As a society a set of standards will emerge as to what is fair and what is unfair.  Those who don’t follow these standards will be treated as scum-bags.  Predatory lenders and their ilk will be so hated by a well informed society that they will have trouble continuing to exist.  Other institutions which follow more ethical (from the perspective of the society) guidelines will spring up to meet the needs of people who formerly were subject to usury.  The mutual bank is a good example of this.