I once wrote an article (which I must look up) in which the government decided everyone had to be equal so women had to, by law, ask out a certain number of men or face fines or jail time. Imagine the outcry from women, which proves they don't want equality, not really.
This article is from the Foundation for Economic Education and was written by Julian Adorney
This year’s Valentine’s Day was disastrous — not just for me, but for many ex-couples. But as I sat there on Sunday nursing my broken heart, I realized what’s wrong with romance today: not enough regulation.
The United States government has wisely chosen to regulate most other aspects of life, from what wage you are allowed to work for to what medicines a patient is allowed to buy over the counter. Voluntary interactions are all well and good, but the bottom line is that people have to be protected from themselves. The trade-off between liberty and security exists not only in privacy and foreign policy: we must strike a similar balance in the arena of love.
I propose the creation of a new government organization, the Committee to Assure Romantic Equity (CARE), to bring an end to the current Wild West of romance. Three powerful sets of regulations would bring much-needed stability to the chaos of dating.
1. Who’s allowed to date?
Just as professionals — from hair-braiders to interior decorators — must be licensed, so too the government must step in to license daters.
Right now, the dating market is overrun with shoddy specimens. Sleazy men buy women drinks and sleep with them on the first date. Immoral women cheat on their loving boyfriends. Many people lack the discretion to choose good partners for themselves, and their poor decisions can bring out the worst in people. Never mind that they sometimes have children.
To remedy this situation, any dating hopeful should have to submit an application to CARE. A licensing system should be set up whereby applicants pay for classes in order to certify both their good-heartedness and their ability to treat a partner well. In order to enforce this system, CARE agents would inspect couples, fining or jailing any individual engaged in dating without a CARE permit.
This wise step will remove the riff-raff from the dating market and ensure that good, kind individuals are never lured into romances they’ll regret. And if a few people find themselves forcibly removed from the dating pool, so what? They probably weren’t great partners to begin with.
2. Dating tickets
It is self-evident by now that free markets aren’t qualified to distribute scarce natural resources. Unregulated capitalism causes intense inequality.
Today, some men and women have four or five dates per week. Others may suffer dry spells lasting months. Further, those individuals who go on many dates have an opportunity to hone their skills, making them more attractive and ensuring even more dates in the future, while those who haven’t had a date in months simply languish. Their skills deteriorate, making them less and less attractive.
Such a situation is unequal and unfair. It highlights how unfettered markets create a rich-get-richer environment in which a lucky few rise to the top while the majority suffers. It proves that returns to love capital happen only at the top of the distribution, or as Thomas Piketty might summarize this theory: “r > l” where “r” is the rate of return on love capital and “l” is the rate of love growth for the rest of us.
To remedy this situation, every man and woman should be forced to submit to CARE the number of dates he or she has planned each week. If someone has more than four, one of those dates should be randomly reassigned to a person who hasn’t been on a date in a month or more. This system will ensure a more even distribution of dates, in which each man and woman gets a fair share. (Apps like Tinder and OKCupid will have to be replaced by a single-payer CARE app.)
Some people — not to name names — plan a beautiful weekend getaway for Valentine’s Day, only to be dumped without warning because we’re “too political.” This situation isn’t just immoral; it ought to be illegal!
The government already regulates who can be fired from a job and under what circumstances. We realize, for example, the tragic consequences of a woman losing her sole means of income, so we take steps to protect employees.
But is losing love any less traumatic? Heartbreak can lead to pain, misery, and even death. With this fact in mind, I propose a few common-sense restrictions on breaking up with a significant other.
Each man or woman preparing to let a partner go should have to fill out several forms showing due cause. No one should have to fear being dumped for trifling reasons such as “too much” political activism. With the guidance of CARE, relationships will be sustained that should be sustained — even as those that have a justifiable reason to end will be allowed to do so.
Similarly, we as a society should no longer tolerate breakups that give no warning. A person seeking to break up with a significant other should have to fill out a written complaint, notify his or her partner, and wait two weeks before the breakup. This notice will give the injured party time to adjust to the new status quo.
What about freedom?
Some naysayers complain that this new CARE will limit our freedom. But freedom is not the only value. We have to consider the greater good.
Freedom is tolerable when exercised in ways that serve society, but its excesses must be curbed to prevent its exercise in antisocial ways. Good, decent people need some security in the romance market. If that means a little less independence for everyone else, so be it. Those who demand unfettered freedom are simply apologists for the heartbreak status quo.
Ayup. There are legions of women that would jump all over that...provided that they, themselves, were the ones dictating to everyone else of course.
It gets worse when women become mothers. They go from virulent socialists to bat chit crazy fascists in 9 months. Go to a PTA meeting if you don't believe me...you will see any number of clot headed cnuts advocating policies that will benefit their child - and screw the rest over! And they could care less! One is reminded of the whole 'Your kid can't have peanut butter sammiches in school because my kid is allergic and stupid and might eat them...'. Yet these same women will also stand up on their hind feet to oppose the vaccination of their idiot spawn too! HAR HAR HAR!
One is almost tempted to wish for an outbreak - it would certainly serve to cull the stupid from our ranks! Ooops - gotta go!
Apparently there are some stupid gamma men that agree with them, and Vox Day is holding on line two...
That is so fucking funny! And does one have to wonder as to whom just got broken up with?
The more power women get the more they become control freaks.
Here is more dating market analysis:
Hilarious! I almost spilled coffee from laughing so hard.
I'm assuming that the original article wasn't actually tongue-in-cheek. Given that, what we have here is a pathetic shell of a "man" who has his heart broken - and then decides that this is "not fair" and "something must be done about it" to "protect others".
You can smell the screwed-up thinking from miles away. Like the poor damn MRAs who still try to work within the system to change it, not accepting that it's irretrievably broken. "Problem? What's the solution? More regulation!"
A modest proposal indeed
I'd like to give some policy warnings.
1st It t will create and underground market that is unregulated and good for organized crime.
2nd With stressed law enforcement budgets we can't afford stings or to go after the inevitable Date Easy's an organized crime.
3rd With the reproduction rate tanking even among second generation Hispanics, we can't afford to put up barriers to possible babies being born. Its becoming an economic liability.
Eh, A.B. Prosper, if you want more locally born babies in the US, then change inheritance laws to such effect that the more inheritance recipients are in your will, the lesser portion is being taxed away. That even doesn't necessarily need be genetic descendants, as people generally prefer relatives to strangers in that regard.
It's interesting that some states already have even more ridiculous laws in force:
The Internet is poor at sarcasm Mindstorm. Sorry to be obtuse but i thought the "modest proposal" Swift reference would carry that.
That said while inheritance reform isn't a bad idea, it will zip effect on the number of children being born.
what will have an effect is policy changes that encourage higher wages and more stable jobs.
Even when leaders aren't malignant, they are so used to "well they always had slum babies for us to exploit before. What happened?" they don't know how to compensate when decent working class or former middle class people start to behave rationally and limit family size when they lower income.
This doesn't effect new immigrants who still have it better than it home or the low IQ/High Time preference types but its crippling to the people who can actually keep society functional
Once the erosion reaches a certain point, even the boot stepping on a human face many areas have for "governance" stops being possible
Population wise it is especially important in Europe where around half of young people (under 29) do not have enough income to start families. About 1/3 have no full time work and many simply have low wages or unstable work.
In the end the selfish elite population replacement will end in tears and ugliness but in many respects the elite are far more short sighted and malign than ghetto rats.
I don't mind sarcasm. Could you tell me where the net wealth transfers from the working and middle class are leading? Not only to permanent welfare, yes or no? How is that changing over the period of last several decades?
Well, but a variable inheritance tax would undoubtedly affect the elites themselves, especially if you make the tax in question rising progressively with the worth of divided estate.
Something to consider:
Post a Comment