Hobby-ism

I must be missing something obvious, here.

The Supremes have granted certiorari to the Hobby Lobby case, in which the owners of that corporation, devout Christians who believe that the government should leave them alone so that they can patrol the bedrooms of their employees, insist that a requirement of Obamacare would force them to act in a fashion that is inimical to their free exercise of religion.

The Hobby Lobbyists are opposed to contraception , on religious grounds. Obamacare (aka the ACA) requires that insurance policies cover contraception. Thus, a federal mandate contravenes the religious conviction of the Green family, which owns the company, and so of the company itself.

First, a few riffs:

• Could the Hobby Lobby convert to, say, Islam? I mean, is it possible?
• Has the Hobby Lobby been baptised? If not, is it destined to burn in Hell?
• How does David Green, paterfamilias of the Green clan (which includes his wife and their three         --hmmmm-- children), know what the religion of the company is?
• In what fashion does the company, as opposed to Mr. Green himself, exercise its religion? I mean, other than by denying a valuable benefit to those whom it employs?

As to this last question, the company's stores are closed on Sundays. It's not Sunday, so I can't try to buy something on the website; but I bet I could do so. The company won't let its website observe the Sabbath, even though it does so itself?

Arguments that have surfaced, so far, deal with the Establishment Clause, with the distinction between speech and religious observance, with the lack of precedent --although the ACA itself unhelpfully exempts religious organizations and companies with fewer than 50 employees, among others, from the contraception mandate.

But I see (or, I think I see) another issue entirely. The fact that I don't find it anywhere being advanced makes me think I've missed a critical point. But here it is:

If the Hobby Lobby can be exempted from observing a law because of its religious convictions, can an Amish Hobby Lobby be exempted from withholding and paying Social Security Tax? (I guess my riff about converting to Islam wasn't such a silly lark, after all.) I mean, independent contractors who are Amish are so exempted; what's the distinction? Size? Does size really matter (sorry; just had to say that)?

We could conjure up even crazier cases. My religion requires that I sacrifice my first-born when he reaches age nine. I've been careful to raise him in isolation, promising him 47 virgins as a prize, etc, so that he is entirely willing to be sacrificed. Can I do it? 

My religion proscribes the education of women, and mandates that they be beaten daily, and that my daughters be married to octogenarians once they reach the age of six. All Okay?

I am a pacifist, and my company is a Quaker. Can my company refuse to pay half its income tax, because that portion of the federal budget is used for the Department of Defense?

I thought these are well-settled issues. I thought that, just because I live in Wyoming, I cannot legally avoid supporting the Coast Guard, which I don't need. But I hear daily someone complain that he shouldn't have to buy an insurance policy that includes coverage (maternity care, etc) that he can't possibly use. Well, I have no use for the NSA; and Texas Governor Rick Perry has no use for the Deparetment of Commerce, and the Department of Education, and ... what was that other one? Oops! So can he just refuse to let his taxes be used to support those functions?

All these arguments for exception are of a piece: I am not responsible for anything other than my own requirements, and those of whoever I choose to support. There's no such thing as societal, or community, responsibility or interdependence. those who say otherwise are socialists. And I shouldn't have to pay to maintain anything to which I am opposed.

Well, so be it. But what the Hobby Lobbys of the world, and their numerous offshoots and avatars, are really saying is that they believe in liberty only for themselves. Worse, they are willing to step on someone else's rights, and deny to the needy what they could easily provide them, in order to sustain their own privilege, their own conceit. These people do not participate in the American social and political covenant, except when they are forced to do so. The rules, they believe, are not for them.

"Thought" Leaders

Maybe it means that someone thought this person was a leader:

... monetary authorities' chatter about a "little inflation" guarantees that younger Americans will have to pay 1980s-level interest rates on their first homes."

So from Amity Shlaes in Forbes (10/7/13), surely the silliest and least substantive "business" publication in wide circulation. Ms. Shlaes wants "hard money" --paradoxically, so that interest rates can rise. In this, she is in the company of the rentier class, those who believe that, having amassed significant wealth, they should now be paid for having it. Note that the above quote, like pretty much all of what Ms. Shlaes says, is unaccompanied by an argument --it's just an assertion.

There are two things about this column that strike me: First, that Shlaes is worried about inflation; and second, that she is offended that a consensus is emerging in favor of "easier money no matter what direction interest rates take or what history's record suggests we do".

As for inflation; those with whom Shlaes agrees have been warning about hyper-inflation for 5 years. How long must we wait for this dire prediction to come true? Her concern for "history's record" is odd, given her resolute unwillingness to ignore the history of the past half-decade (or, in Japan, the past 2 decades). In much of the developed world, deflation is a greater worry than inflation.

And second, one of the reasons, of course, that a consensus is emerging (to the extent that this is the case) is that the many of those in the Shlaes cohort have slowly recognized that stimulus, including the Fed's Quantitative Easing policy, has not produced inflation.

As for the "1980s-level interest rates" she thinks is facing the next generation, she forgets that few of them appear to be inclined, or able, to purchase a first home. You have to be employed in order to do that.