Opposite of repugnance: Protected transactions

I've been thinking lately about transactions that are the opposite of repugnant, i.e. transactions that, as a society, we often seek to promote, for reasons other than efficiency or pure political expediency.

In yesterday's post I mentioned monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, which in many countries and U.S. states is promoted over other forms of marriage (such as polygamy or same sex marriage).

Home ownership in the US is an obvious one, in this post-housing-bubble financial crisis, in which there have been Federal bailouts of the various Government Sponsored Entities like Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, set up to promote home ownership.

Food production by small farmers, not only in the US, but also in Europe and Japan: we protect this by subsidies, price supports, government supported crop insurance programs, etc.

Fishing by small fishing boats: if we were only interested in protecting fish to keep fisheries sustainable, we might regulate fisheries by imposing seasonal limits on how much could be caught. But in many cases we also set daily limits (e.g. some fishermen on Cape Cod are limited to catch no more than 400lbs of scallops a day). This makes large, factory fishing uneconomical, and protects small local fishermen.

The right to purchase guns probably falls into this category in the U.S.

Of course, as with repugnant transactions, protected transactions may involve a lot of complications, like providing public goods and protecting rights. But it may be that to better understand which kinds of transactions may come to be regarded as repugnant, it will help to understand which kinds of transactions are sometimes protected.

Update: looking at the comments, commuting alone in a car seems worth including on the list of protected transactions in the U.S. (And thank you to Dubner at Freakonomics for his generous plug of this blog...)