Freedom from consequence. The fundamental argument there is that workers have little freedom because, for example, they have to eat, they have to pay their bills, etc. It's the argument, at its root, that the price we pay for our decisions shouldn't be too high - and, to recycle my words, that our decisions should be fundamentally trivial. Whether or not we go to work today shouldn't affect us too much more than whether or not we wear a red shirt or a blue shirt.

And by this I don't mean such individuals want to be -completely- free of consequence, just free of any consequence that substantially burdens them, that makes their lives substantively worse. They're fine with consequence, so long as the consequence is inconsequential. (The precise extent varies by individual, but the basics exist there in some extent.)