I wrote the post in a rush as always, the SSC link at the bottom didn't make a lot of sense I guess.
I do see the parallel, but unfortunately I'm a left-libertarian!
Yeah I'm mostly surprised by how many people don't get the analogy at all. Like, just miss it completely.
The fact that if people don't have jobs they'll starve, justifying a social safety net.
I'm in favor of making sure people don't starve, but I don't think that's where the conversation in politics is right now. I think conservatives would support social programs to prevent literal starvation. Most bloopers, I reasonably assume, are for much more than just "make sure they don't starve."
Legalized prostitution would also help, and I do support that.
I know sex workers' rights is hot on Twitter right now, but I think most women oppose it, although these things follow the fashion, and fashion can change fast.
One of the things I desperate want to see is the reactions of women, who once previously dismissed any negative impacts from hypergamy, and explicit say that women are not a resource for men, toward a world where vast blocs of men are devoting most of their resources to prostitutes.
Well, I've got a problem with that! Talk about a male perspective! What about the women who want to choose to share one man? They should be denied to preserve a pool of marriageable women for all the extra males that would otherwise have scarce pickings? Are women some kind of natural resource to be conserved for the benefit of males?
...
Lack of information about the trades one is making. While this is a serious problem in dating markets (c.f. "I never thought she would divorce me!"), it seems intractable to solve any more than we already have.
On a practical, pure-information level, I'd like to see easy-to-read infographics that outline the probable alimony and child support burdens men face in their states, as well as warnings about the ease with which they're convicted for domestic violence, taped in strategic places like, well, where people get married.