[luckylion]

While the public doesn't have immediate power, it has a lot of freedom. If you manage your retirement fund, you can use it in whatever way you want. Buy a boat. Start a company. Gamble it all away in a week.

A lot of European countries have a much more paternal approach. Citizens can't be trusted to make good decisions, so they only receive part of their salary, and the rest is being managed "for them" - and that's non-negotiable (but there are some exceptions). A lot more stable, but a lot less free because you have a guardian making those decisions for you.

[tfourb]

This is not what happens. European public pension systems are mostly based on a solidarity system in which current wage earners pay for the pensions of current pensioners.

This system has its problems, mostly demographics with fewer young people entering the workforce and an unwillingness to fill the gap with immigration, but it has nothing to do with not trusting people to make their own decisions. It’s simply a historically grown approach which actually has worked quite well (and better than in the US for a greater share of society) for over a century.

[ExoticPearTree]

> This is not what happens. European public pension systems are mostly based on a solidarity system in which current wage earners pay for the pensions of current pensioners.

It is a big Ponzi scheme, and now that fewer people are joining the workforce, governments borrow money to pay pensions. And a duscretiinary power to decide how much a retired worker gets. Nothing scremas solidarity more than a bureaucrat deciding that from next month your grandma is only entitled to this much pension because there’s less money for it.

The American way is actually the mote fairer system. Could be even more fair if you did mot have to pay tax on your pension gains from stocks inventments and whatnot.

[yo_ean]

How would European pensioners in 1950 be paid their pension with the American system? Note all savings they had went to zero in the decades before.

[ExoticPearTree]

They should have gone back to work.

It would have sucked, but they wouldn’t have been a burden on the current generation back then who did not start the war or went through the great depression.

[tfourb]

Depends on your definition of "fair" and if you value that fairness more than social solidarity. I personally do not think it is "fair" that your basic human dignity in retirement statistically depends to a large extend on the wealth and social status of the parents that you were born to. I would actually argue (and many EU constitutions are based around this principle) that no matter your personal or your parents' contribution to the economy or society, you should be guaranteed a certain level of dignity, care and security.

The classical "Old World" social system is based around solidarity. Solidarity of the young with the old, of the healthy with the sick, of the fortunate with the unlucky. It has produced much better results for a far greater share of society and with much less inherent risk than the "everyone for their own" system of ultimate individual responsibility that the US has largely favored. Where it has failed it was largely due to the "neoliberal turn" of the 1990s and 2000s.

It's clearly due for an overhaul, but there are good options to do so. Europe's societies are waelthier, both in absolute term, as well as on average per capital, than they've ever been. What's missing is largely the political will to commit to the principle of solidarity over the resistance of monied interests that would benefit from a stronger turn to individualism. And I challenge you to look at the results of the mostly private health and pensions systems in the US on a factual and comparative basis and claim that they produce inherently better results.

"Nothing scremas solidarity more than a bureaucrat deciding that from next month your grandma is only entitled to this much pension because there’s less money for it."

Again, this is not how it works. I.e. in Germany there are actual laws governing the setting of pensions. And while these laws can be changed by parliament (though not by "bureaucrats"), they are rooted in constitutional principles that set guardrails for any reform.

[luckylion]

It very much is what happens. Yes, there are _also_ historical reasons for it, but today's arguments are centered around the state's risk that you might mismanage your stuff and require assistance. Hence Germany's insistence of allowing separate forms (with tax-advantages) only via long-term committed insurance policies ("Riester-Rente", "Rürüp-Rente").

You'll see echoes of the same ideas in other parts, be it recreational drug use, gun-ownership, what you're allowed to name your kids, building codes & zoning laws, school laws etc etc.

You can absolutely argue the merit of limiting people's choices, but I don't think you can deny that we do.

[tfourb]

You (like many people holding this viewpoint) have a very narrow view of "people's choices", which we could maybe also term "liberty".

I'm personally in the very lucky position of being born to reasonably rich parents. Having benefited from that wealth (and good quality public education and infrastructure), I earn more than the average person. I pay a lot of taxes and public insurance, much more than I probably would in the US. I have very little say in how that money is used and it probably benefits other people much more than it benefits me personally.

Your perspective probably is that my government limits my liberty to handle my money as I see fit. Some people would even go as far as call this system theft.

My perspective is different. There is not only my personal liberty, my freedom to choose at stake. If I don't pay taxes, some kid from a poor family won't benefit from the public education that allowed my parents and myself to become wealthy.

Same with gun-ownership. It has been well established that the US system increases the liberty of owning guns, but at the cost of decreasing the liberty of gun victims to stay alive. Zoning? It might inconvenience my personal liberty to not be allowed to build where I want, but it sure increases the liberty of everyone else to benefit from reduced urban sprawl.

I'm not saying that we can't argue over where the lines should be drawn. But all that discussion of "freedom", "liberty" and "choice" always only focusses on the choice of the person talking and rarely on the choices available to everyone else as a result of individual behavior.

As for drugs, I think it's hard to argue that US drug laws are more liberal than those in many EU countries. If I recall correctly, an immense share of the US prison population is related to drug charges, often for relatively "soft" drugs like Marihuana, that are legal in many instances in the EU.

[luckylion]

Yes, liberty is generally about individuals and often juxtaposed with collective interests. Your freedom to choose what to do with your life hurts the interests of the collective that would benefit from some choices more than from others. And Europe is, compared with the US, definitely much more collectivist. I'm happy you agree on the fundamentals!

I think that's perfectly fine and primarily a cultural choice. There's no need to make it a moral question and declare this or that the "right" way.

Europeans tend to mistrust the individual to make good decisions without laws removing choice, I think you've demonstrated that part very clearly. And, that's all I was saying, that is a primary driver for mandatory pension systems that removes people's ability to make their own investment decisions. Again, you'll say that's good and necessary - but it's happening.

[tfourb]

You misunderstand my point. The juxtaposition is not between "individual" and "collective" liberties. That's a bit of a separate argument. It is about "your" liberty vs. "mine". You might feel that a ban on guns might limit your liberty. But giving you a gun limits my liberty, because I would feel threatened and unable to express myself fully in a society where I would have to assume that random people on the street carry guns.

It's about your individual liberties limiting someone else's personal liberties. Nothing collective about it. But in public discourse, it is always the liberties that powerful people benefit from disproportionately that are framed as "good". I.e. when there was a concerted push by black liberationists in the US to form armed militias, gun laws were tightened. Now that gun ownership is interpreted mostly as a right valued by disgruntled white people, it is expanded.

Same with equating of control over money and liberty. We live in an age of almost unparalleled wealth accumulation in the hands of the few. I'm sitting on my local council and I can tell you that if we have to increase the fees for school lunches due to low tax revenues, there is nothing "collective" about the ramifications. It will directly and forcefully impact a relatively small number of individual children, whose parents will have significantly (for them) less disposable income as a result, severely limiting their liberty to afford their children a decent start to life.

It is beside the point if I think that someone can or can't make good decisions about the use of their own money. Even if I assume that they'd make much more profit if they invest it on their own, I'd still argue that a healthy society should be based around the principle of solidarity and a wholistic view of individual freedoms, and not just advance the advantage of a select few that have the means to push for their favorite liberties to be prioritized over everyone else's.

[luckylion]

> But giving you a gun limits my liberty, because I would feel threatened and unable to express myself fully in a society where I would have to assume that random people on the street carry guns.

Yes, I understand the point. There are others who feel threatened and affected by people of different sexual orientations, even if those people never interact with them different than everyone else. You'll protest, no doubt, their feelings aren't legitimate - those are phobias while yours are rational feelings!

In pretty much every EU member state, you'll have to assume that random people on the street carry guns. Not everyone, not most, but some, none visibly. Would it make you more or less comfortable if the same number of people openly carried the same guns?

"Wholistic view of individual freedoms" sounds to me like a quote from the movie Thank You For Smoking. My memory is terrible, but it goes something like this (context, old movies are being edited to remove cigarettes in order to not promote smoking): "Aren't you altering history" - "No, we are improving history".

I find it much better to just flat out say "the collective over the individual", and not dance around it with fancy terms. Redefining liberties as privileges instead of rights isn't the way to go. Arguing for the merit of something is much better than trying to sneak it in by bending language and concepts.

[lucketone]

Your analysis is fully correct.

I want to add one more aspect to this.

If I gamble my pension away, I have detrimental effect on my neighbours and the rest of society. Sure I could work for a little longer, but not for too long.

One non-exhaustive example: If I don’t die right after my last contract ends, it means I’m consuming food and have some kind of shelter, which is payed by somebody.

[luckylion]

That's the stability vs risk trade-off, I think. The European approach is much more stable, but stability isn't free.

I'd compare it to investing in the stock market (volatility & good yield) vs investing in government bonds (more secure, you know what you'll get back after they mature, lower yield).