>>I think you missed my point. The point is that we (individuals) have the power. When we (collectively) choose to move this way or that way, things move this way or that way. Leaders only have the power we give them. And a leader leading incorrectly is not to be followed when there is guidance another way from a higher authority.
>
>I don't understand why you are saying this, because this is exactly what I said and what is being practiced. Except that we, the people, make the law by voting for our represantatives, and those laws are there to protect us. So yes, we collectively choose to make some contracts and clauses void because they are not lawful. You brought up the law in the first place, and this is the law. Not the contract, the contract is under the law. If you disagree take it up with the government, not with anybody here.
>
>>My point is you the potential employee should never have agreed to that term in the first place, whether it's legal or not. The potential employee should've said, "I will not sign that contract because it is a violation of my rights as an individual" and moved on. If people did this together, then employers would seek to work within what the mass of the people are driving, rather than trying to drive the mass of the people over fear (of not having money, losing their home, hurting their family, etc.).
>
>That is only theory, because in practice the employer has the power, and there will always be hungry people or desperate people who will do it cheaper. We used to have this system before where the workers had zero rights, and I am glad it has changed. Your system does not work, therefore we have the law, concepts of labour rights and minimum wage and much more than that. It is not a matter if you agree or disagree, it is practice and it is how it works. I only say this because my point is, that although you are raising valid questions, we cannot determine that anything unlawful was happening, because the contract alone does not constitute law. A contract may be overruled by a higher law, which we commonly refer to as the justice system. To give away the justice system would be the worst idea ever to happen.

Your position yields the society we have in this world. It's all it can ever do because it hands the personal authority you possess over to designing men and women who seek to take advantage of you, and use you, to their gain, and your loss.

It's different than the fundamental rights and authorities given to us at our birth, "endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights... that among these..." Note: There are other rights we possess, and not just those enumerated in a document like the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

It is those rights the people possess that the people in power and authority seek to take away. There is an evil force at work in men and women, and that evil force is driving them to make us renters, not owners, when the facts are this: we have been endowed at birth with the right to be owners, and given the freedom to walk in that station ... if we will abide by its calling in all areas in our lives. It is only when we compromise that we ourselves are compromised.