Being able to restrict yourself is exactly what the right to enter contracts is.
Just like being able to commit yourself to showing up to work everyday restricts your freedom. But it's essential to getting the other party to give up something in consideration.
Of course, you can argue that consumers should be treated like legal babies that can't enter into agreements.
There's a difference between restricting your freedom and restricting your rights. When you enter an employment contract, you agree to give up some freedom in return for a salary etc. but it doesn't take away any of your rights. You still have the right to life, liberty etc. You still have the right to not turn up to work, though too much of that will likely cause them to terminate your employment. An employment contract that removes rights is typically not legal in sane countries (e.g. agreeing to become a slave).
In Germany your employment contract can have Vertragsstrafen, ie the contract can say that if you do something you need to pay a penalty even above and beyond damages.
But in any case, employment contracts are weirdly restricted in many places, exactly because lawmakers think workers are metaphorical babies.
You can have a look at contracts between equals to see that being able to restrict yourself is important.
> because lawmakers think workers are metaphorical babies.
To be fair, there's a long history of abusive employers, so it's wise to try to tilt the law in favour of the employee as otherwise they get exploited even more than usual. The nature of employment is typically skewed as employers will have a lot more power than the employees - that's why Unions were invented to try to redress that balance.
> You can have a look at contracts between equals to see that being able to restrict yourself is important.
There's an important distinction between restricting yourself and signing away inalienable rights. You can certainly agree to restrict your speech so as to not embarrass your employer or give away secrets, but signing away your right to liberty is different.
You give workers more power by making sure there's plenty of competition between employers, and plenty of other outside options for workers.
See eg how here in Singapore we have no minimum wage and basically no unions worth that name, and yet we have some of the highest wages in the world.
> There's an important distinction between restricting yourself and signing away inalienable rights. You can certainly agree to restrict your speech so as to not embarrass your employer or give away secrets, but signing away your right to liberty is different.
Granted for the sake of argument. I don't see what that has to do with binding arbitration over licensing of some computer games?
> You give workers more power by making sure there's plenty of competition between employers, and plenty of other outside options for workers.
In theory that should work, but I have heard of U.S. companies that try to use non-compete clauses in employment contracts to prevent workers from being able to exercise their right to work in the same industry for a different company.
> here in Singapore we have no minimum wage
Just looked that up as I am not familiar with Singapore (apart from half a day due to airplane issues) and it appears that there is instead a sector specific Progressive Wage Model (PWM) that is mandatory for some of those sectors (e.g. food, retail, cleaning).
> I don't see what that has to do with binding arbitration over licensing of some computer games?
It's the notion of giving up your right to legal redress if Sony suddenly revokes your license to use what you've already paid for.
On the one hand, I agree that consumers should be better informed, but on the other hand, it may not be considered legal in some jurisdictions to include such a clause. The argument would be that no-one in their right mind would agree to pay someone for a license that could be removed at any point for no redress - the consumer clearly did not understand or read that part. It's usually not legal to include "hidden" clauses in contracts that go against what people would generally accept and agree to.
>Being able to restrict yourself is exactly what the right to enter contracts is.
Not when only one person gets to write the contract and terms are take-it-or-leave-it. If there is no chance to negotiate, it is clearly little more than the wealthy abusing the less wealthy to their own advantage.
If you don't like the burger at McDonald's, you go across the street to Burger King. Lots of power for the customer, even though the offer is take it or leave it.
Illusion of choice when Burger King & McD's end up under the same umbrella company run by the same fucking people. Your answer tries to put the onus on the individual, when those who replicate legal fiction are busy shaping the field of choice to their advantage.
At some point, the money doesn't flow anymore to the people who refuse to play the extractive game that causes problems in the first place.
Just like being able to commit yourself to showing up to work everyday restricts your freedom. But it's essential to getting the other party to give up something in consideration.
Of course, you can argue that consumers should be treated like legal babies that can't enter into agreements.