A Couple of Final Thoughts on Hobby Lobby

It should not be necessary to say this, but apparently it is:

  • The government's reluctance to ban an activity does not constitute an endorsement
  • The government's refusal to subsidize an activity does not constitute a ban


  1. J Calvert:

    Intellectual honesty is less important than having a political club to beat my opponents with. Go Team Pepsi!

  2. Not Sure:

    An unfortunate number of people are too stupid to understand that the claim that Hobby Lobby is denying access to contraceptive healthcare is an outright lie, which is why that argument resonates with the clueless.

  3. Curtis:

    What government are you talking about?

    Tacit approval is anything except full on proscription.
    Failure to subsidize behavior is ipso facto, a 'hate' position.

    How did you miss that? Try donating a dollar to any group that opposes the liberal progressive stance on anything and see where that lands you on the enemies list.

  4. NL7:

    This is emotional signaling, so it's binary. There are two options, and the only way to be neutral is to fail to argue a position at all.

    Either you want to increase X through means of money, rules, and public statements, or you want to decrease X through means of defunding, prohibitions, and public statements. Neutrality is drafted into one side or the other, depending on the issue and the spin. If X is already legal and publicly funded, then moving to legality without funding will be seen as anti-X. If X is currently illegal, then moving to legal but with a solemn promise to always decline public funding will be categorized as pro-X.

    As libertarians, we're having a different argument based on an abstract and rational conception of human society and interaction. Most people are reducing an issue to its basest elements so that they can signal good things about themselves (often people signal their goodness by showing what they hate about the signaling they unfairly attribute to others).

  5. A Scot:

    The same people who see a tax break as a government expenditure see a refusal to subsidize as a ban. Same type of thinking.

  6. JohnM:


    -- The government's subsidy to an activity does constitute an endorsement

    Think Windmills, Solyndra etc

    -- The government's taxing of an activity can constitute disapproval

    Think tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks

    If you believe that taxing an activity is a legitimate way to discourage behaviour or that subsidising an activity is a legitimate way to encourage behaviour, then you will inevitably believe that a change in tax or subsidy also shows approval or disapproval.

  7. johncunningham:

    I like to point out to femhags that they do not have to spend a dime on contraception, they can stick to lesbian sex, oral sex, and anal sex. they all help to SAVE THE PLANET!!!