Be that as it may, and not to go too far off-topic with this, but anything that you just called a “natural condition”, at the end of the day, is nothing more than a human expectation of what “has to be natural”, which is not much unlike what you defined as “a human obsession”. This is not about disagreeing with the concept of being free, but all I’m trying to say is that selective application of the notion is rarely constructive.
You’re free to advise your clients not to use PayPal, you’re free to object to their rulings, methods, whatever is related to the way they or any other entity chooses to operate, but you can’t have it both ways. It’s a simple choice really. Speaking of which, perhaps I’m missing something here, but why is it ok for a bank to ask for your personal details, and any papers they require to confirm your identity, yet an entity operating with the same currency is not? Is your freedom to decline providing these details or freedom to feel that your fundamental right to privacy was breached simply not applicable to a bank? If so, why?
Living in a society, using mechanisms defined by said society (be it banks or PayPal), one has the choice to be a part of said society or not (i.e: using either or not). Of course, having objections and contradicting opinions is part of those fundamental freedoms, so we can agree to disagree