I very much support the freedom of everybody to make life choices. But it is equally important to think those life choices through, and ultimately assume the consequences of those choices. If you tattoo "Fuck You!" on your forehead, you don't get to complain that people you meet the first time have a negative attitude towards you.

One life choice I am very supportive of, because I took it myself, is the choice to not have children. Random chance is certainly involved here, and both unwanted pregnancies and unwanted childlessness happens; but between birth control and fertility treatment, the part that choice plays in having children has been growing. If global fertility rates are dropping precipitously, that is largely due to individual choices. Young people these days are increasingly likely to be single, increasingly likely to not have sex, and increasingly likely to not want children. These are all valid life choices. I just would wish that everybody would stop complaining about the logical consequences of those life choices.

Big global problems like the housing crisis, the uncertain future of pension systems, or immigration are directly related to these aggregated life choices. In 1940, under 8% of all households in the US consisted of only one person; today it is 29%. Which means that the same number of people these days need 21% more housing units to live in. That doesn't help when there is a shortage of housing. It is also significantly more difficult to finance housing with one income rather than two. I'm not saying that everybody marrying would solve the housing crisis, but this is certainly a contributing factor that nobody ever mentions. You might look at the 1950's core family model as outdated, patriarchal, or otherwise bad; but the model does have advantages in terms of both financial and emotional stability, especially for the children. Different models of living are all valid, but one has to be aware of the likely consequences.

I just started to get a state pension, and in my case I will never get more money out of that pension than I paid into the system over my career. I don't know how safe my state pension is over my remaining years. But I do know that I shouldn't complain, as my decision to not have children contributed to the problem, due to the pay as you go pension system that many first world countries have. I will complain about the fact that politicians took my money out of public pension funds for other stuff when those were producing surpluses, instead of covering the predictable future. But I can't help to notice the irony of millennials now complaining about having to pay boomer pensions, before they wake up to the fact that their own pensions are in even more peril due to their even lower childbirth rates.

The potentially highest hypocrisy of not assuming the consequences of life choices is in the subject of immigration. A large number of people oppose immigration. But both the life choice of not having children, and the life choice of going preferably for white collar jobs, in aggregate make immigration inevitable. We only get the choice between replacing missing population with immigrants, or replacing them with dolls, and the dolls are less productive, economically speaking. In Germany, over 40% of jobs in the hospitality sector are filled by people with an immigration background, and there is still a shortage of workers there. If we want fewer children, and if we want our children to all have white collar jobs, we need to answer the question of who is going to do the menial labor.

I don't claim my life choices are somehow superior to the choices other people made. But I am okay with my life choices, and the consequences. I object to the maximalist position, in which some people want to have the freedom to make any life choice they want, but do not want to live with the logical consequences if everybody else makes the same choices. It is Kant’s categorical imperative that we shouldn't make life choices that we don't want everybody to make.