On consent and exploitation, I don't think it's so clear cut. For example, take someone with a serious medical condition that requires a constant supply of expensive medication and who gets their insurance as a perk from their job. Their manager knows of their condition. They know that not having that medication is life threatening. The manager never directly uses their medical issue in a threat, but somehow, the sick employee who CANNOT tolerate a lapse in insurance coverage is the one constant made to stay late and do extra work on a fixed salary, i.e., effectively unpaid overtime. They do it without complaint because they feel like, even though it's not fair how they're treated, refusing would jeopardize their life saving insurance. Management fully intended that when they chose them to stay late, but they'd NEVER actually say that out loud. The worker consented to take the job for that pay and with those benefits, and they consented to that extra unpaid work, but I'd still call that exploitive.
And as for agorism, it's an interesting idea, so I asked around a bit here on nostr, but nobody seems to be able to provide a good answer for some of the same issues ancaps unwittingly face. It's a nice idea, but I don't see it as one capable of succeeding on its own as I currently understand the theory. It's like a slightly less naive, slightly more idealistic version of ancaps. Nice idea, fails to address the realities of how it will play out.