> The point is that in this area people are terrible at making financial choices, and only ever think in the short term. It is hard for me to fully internalize

> The point is that in this area people are terrible at making financial choices, and only ever think in the short term. It is hard for me to fully internalize this point when I have a counterexample readily available, albeit one that will do nothing to convince you. I consider myself capable of making sound financial decisions for myself and would never raid my own pension account, unless faced with immediate existential danger (in which case "raiding" it would be a rational decision). I disagree that the solution to that is to centralize funds in order to let a centralized body inefficiently misallocate (or sometimes outright steal) them and would appreciate the freedom to do this myself. I think the state has too much power and this is detrimental in the long run, as it is detrimental when any single entity has too much power. > There absolutely is a choice - you can politically campaign for the right to opt out, or you can go and live in a country that doesn't have the protections you don't want. > What you don't get to do is live in a society with such protections and social measures and then not play by its rules. I can certainly campaign politically, but that also includes respectfully disagreeing with your conclusion above. This does not make your position right and mine automatically wrong (nor vice versa). The rest of the quoted part of your post sounds like another non-choice (in that the it is highly impractical), followed by a moral judgement.