Some people also drive cars without seat belts or motorbikes without helmets in name of freedom.

I rather have the inconvenience of using them, even if they don't prevent accidents.

These two have nothing common, i'm not sure why you bring that up.

Sure they have, security improvements always come with a small inconvenience cost, although they provide a better outcome in the larger picture.

Having to use a seatbelt or helmet doesn't prevent you from going to any place you want to go.

Not being able to install any software you want on a device you own is not a small inconvenience cost, it is a great artificial limitation meant to take control away from the user and put the user at the mercy of the vendor who can then use it for other user hostile actions (e.g. forced obsolescence, a common tactic in the example of gaming consoles brought before).

And especially in this case, any "better" outcome is really small and short term (the user being unable to do much with their own device means they are also unable to install unwanted software) whereas the larger picture outcome is user hostile - a gradual loss of control and ownership to the goods you are paying for.

Thank malware authors and virus writers.

I rather have a store than a background application taking machine resources, to ensure that applications are safe to use and do not expose my computer contents to the world when connected.

I'd thank malware authors and virus writers only if i was a platform vendor trying to find a scapegoat for why i "have" to take away control from users.

Thankfully i'm not one. But that doesn't make me blind on such schemes.

Also that background application you mention, even though it isn't necessarily needed in all cases, it is still a better solution than a locked down system since it is under the user's control.

There needs to be a PSA about misuse of analogies, especially as some kind of proof or reasoning for an argument.