Ironically enough, serfdom is an illustration of the issue of unlimited private ownership. Often, free men were driven into serfdom due to bad harvest or other economic conditions. They basically sold their labor to lords in often very punitive ways. And their ownership of land was very limited and mostly superficial.
In other words, mutual agreement does not necessarily mean without coercion, nor does it always mean fair. There is a reason people like Thomas Jefferson promoted giving every free man a certain number of acres of arable land upon reaching a certain age. It meant that the landowner always had a means to support themselves and could not be coerced into labor (as was happening in France, a situation which influenced him). A person that always has the means to sustain themselves can only be enticed into labor (a strong theme in Right Libertarianism).
Your last line once again demonstrates your ignorance of many Socialist schools of thought, in this case in particular, Georgism. I don't know how I got "snowed" or what that even means.
First off, "fair" is cutting off everybody's legs because the guy with no legs wants to play.
You cannot be "fair," and free.
Secondly, "coercion" is dependent on the individual, and not universal. Not all failed farmers, etc were coerced into labor, many have, and continue to start new lives and trades. I dare say any worker who finds them self coerced into labor is simple weak minded and a victim unto himself.
Socialism caters to the lowest common denominator, and limits everyone. Freedom rewards the highest common denominator and limits no one.
I'll take freedom, thank you.
BTW, you've been snowed because you have fallen for the Marxist line of bullshit that equates freedom with slavery. You've been told the sky is black and you bought it.