I agree with you in principle that you shouldn't be forced into binding arbitration a priori before any dispute arises. I disagree with you on the point that I think binding arbitration can be a useful alternative remedy to the traditional legal system.
Binding arbitration serves to resolve the dispute. If you can go through binding arbitration and then still go on to sue in court, then it isn't really very binding, is it? So, in order for binding arbitration to be binding, it has to be possible to legally contact too resolve a dispute by binding arbitration. In doing so, you contract to abide by the judgement and waive your right to pursue further legal action (with potentially a handful of exceptions). It is often beneficial for both parties to go through the accelerated process of binding arbitration rather than drag disputes through the overworked court system.
Binding arbitration serves to resolve the dispute. If you can go through binding arbitration and then still go on to sue in court, then it isn't really very binding, is it? So, in order for binding arbitration to be binding, it has to be possible to legally contact too resolve a dispute by binding arbitration. In doing so, you contract to abide by the judgement and waive your right to pursue further legal action (with potentially a handful of exceptions). It is often beneficial for both parties to go through the accelerated process of binding arbitration rather than drag disputes through the overworked court system.