Should I bother to wate a stamp? Who is listening there?

We should have this sentence inscribed on the Capitol Building:

"The single greatest instance of intellectual foolishness today is the continuing pretense that politicians are serious people worthy of serious consideration."

It's just show biz backed by guns, folks.

In politics, it's "snow and sell".

Some powerful try to arbitrarily usurp power, while others are honest (albeit wrong) in their actions, but both are constrained. Simply compare a completely totalitarian state, we have lots of examples from history and current nations, that kills, arbitrarily taxes (including slave labour), tortures, etc. America may not be perfect, and has gotten worse lately (wiretapping, removal of civil liberties, torture of non citizens, and the reaction to the recession), but is far from constraint free in action.

That is the single funniest line I've read all day. Thanks for the laugh, Arare.

You make a lot of assumptions about the constraints of regulators and the power they have over the regulated industry which are not true. The regulator has the power to bend the industry to it's will.

"Because they don't have the choices and power your presume they do. Their master is the regulator and if you don't do what the regulator wants, your business will come to a painful end. I really don't know how to draw the picture more vividly than "mafia thugs"."

I believe you underestimate the power of the ultrarich – they actively influence regulation, and have the option of exit to a nice sunny island – yes, a huge cost there but it is a realistic option, if we are to take our own rhetoric of "keep taxes down, or business and the mobile classes will leave" we must admit this is a viable option. Either way we should stop lying (either to ourselves, or to others).

The American government and regulators are powerful, but constrained. The mafia is much less constrained. Yes, I agree that there is a difference in the mechanism of "strong man" (subjective human action for regulators versus impartial objective reality for the sweetshop), but I think you overestimate what implied and real punishments would be in the bankers case, at the time — I do not think that any of the bankers would lose their money, go to jail, or any other such threatened actions (whereas the mafia really would take your knees, your family, your property, or your life).

The bankers were faced with a decision that forked how society would react, they took the immediately easy decision which may lead to serious loss of freedom for everyone, including them.

Thank you!

Because they don't have the choices and power your presume they do. Their master is the regulator and if you don't do what the regulator wants, your business will come to a painful end. I really don't know how to draw the picture more vividly than "mafia thugs". Nothing but circumstance compels the sweatshop worker from working in the sweatshop. The same circumstance that prevented me from making a lot of money preening before cameras for a living – I am not tall and beautiful and nobody wants to look at my picture. So, am forced to do something else. But I'm not compelled by government.

When LTCM exploded, banks came together in a voluntary private consortium to bail out the hedge fund to allow it to unwind its position in a more orderly fashion and prevent avoidable losses. Bear Stearns chose not to participate despite enormous peer pressure. The difference is that the regulator was not forcing anyone to be part of the consortium.

As unpleasant as a worker in a third world country, with a choice between a sweatshop job as dictated or possible starvation of oneself and ones family? Gee, I will have to wire my money out of the country before it turns into a socialist mess and Randian dystopia, and retire early to a nice island. That sucks – but less than: Gee, I have to work this terrible job or my child will have no future, and no supper either.

If you can see the logic of the sweatshop being positive, and while not ideal better than not having the choice – yes a choice, then why do the bankers, who have many more options, get off with "oh, they were forced and that is bad"? Why not "they have so many options and power, and not a single one stood up for what is right – that sure reflects poorly on them"? and "they all took money that is coerced from taxpayers – not with some abstract possible future threat, but with direct clear penalties including jail – without a single one of them feeling that this was wrong enough not to do so"?

I do not mean to suggest that there is no unpleasant aspects, but that is why we say "stand up to", and why we see kids cave into peer pressure – and note that being in the out group in some neighbourhoods is more dangerous than raising the ire of the American government, who are somewhat constrained by public opinion and the ability of the rich to exit if they see the writing on the wall. Does not "our side" make use of this exit possibility to call for lower taxes? It goes for all onerous laws and threats, not just taxes.

Your regulator taking you into a room and telling you that you must take the money is not peer and social pressure. The implication is that if you don't take the money, the regulator will make things…ah…extremely unpleasant for you.

It's more like a "suggestion" from the Mafia.

Peer and social pressure is not a legitimate argument for libertarians, if I read the philosophy correctly. One can almost define socialism as peer and social pressure writ large (almost is a bit strong, as there are a lot of other negative things claimed as positive in socialism – such as taxing, monopoly, giving power to special interests and politicians, etc. etc. But I think this all goes back to tribalism, which is at its core peer pressure and identification).

Just because a group is doing something does no imply it is moral, and just because they plea with you to join them does not suggest exploitation and no moral responsibility on your part. Sure it is hard to stand up for what is right, especially when your peers do not and instead take the easy and *wrong* route. But this is simply diffusion of personal responsibility, anathema to a libertarian mindset. Does not every (caring) parent try to teach their children to do what is right, not what is popular or easy?

I think that the issue of what "free" in free contract means strikes at the heart of the issue. Socialists like to claim that, essentially, natural monopolies or any situation where one side can dictate terms to better favor them is "unfair" and "exploitative" and "coercive". Free market people tend to claim that, by definition, as long as fraud or coercion is not used, the deal is positive. Where should one draw the line of defining coercion? I would call it "use of force or fear to obtain compliance". Is peer perception really fear inducting?

Socialists say sweatshops are bad, as the terms are not ideal. Free marketers say sweatshops are good, as better may not be as good as best, but it is clearly superior to worse – and working at a sweatshop, as long as it is not forced (i.e. slavery) or fraudulent (i.e. mislead regarding dangers) is clearly better than not doing so *as determined by that worker*. Personal choice, personal responsibility.

I take the free market position regarding contracts. I believe that thinking the banks were forced is being mislead by a fallacy, but an excellent opportunity to think about the meaning of "free", choice, responsibility, asymmetry in power, etc.

The only parties forced in this deal, to my eyes, is the taxpayer (and likely people who save, if inflation destroys their hard earned and prudently saved wealth). As bankers clearly know where the money comes from I have as little respect for them as for the politicians: "Gee, all my friends are taking this stolen money, I don't want to make them feel bad, so I will take it too.".

The Bank of America CEO said in an interview with 60 Minutes that basically they were brought into a room and told they had to accept it so there wouldn't be a stigma against those that did. They were even told that it was their "patriotic duty". Forced? I don't know, but it definitely wasn't a simple invitation.

I should have said "ambiguous", as misleading typically suggests intent (though this is only one meaning – language is so ambiguous with further context, such as tone of voice, timing, etc.!).

But, again, "also, the problem is not so much that Wells Fargo was forced to take government money – rather, it's that having received this money unwillingly, Wells Fargo is now forced to abide by a myriad of rules and restrictions imposed by Uncle Sam on "stimulus" recipients.".

This reply suggests Wells Fargo was forced ("not so much" … "having received unwillingly"), and indicts that you do believe they were forced.

I will submit this as similar to how socialists feel about company "exploitation" – having very bad situations and outcomes color how they think and feel about aspects that should not be so readily lead to indictment. As anyone reading this blog (including me) will feel passionately about this we should be able to use this to understand how socialists can really accept and propagate ideas that may be flawed (I say may, as force may indeed have been used, though I suspect not).

Please do not read this as disrespectful, I have learned much from you and your cohort and believe I have a much clearer understanding of the world and think more clearly due to you.

Unfortunately for the libertarian, this subjective perspective is in the tiny minority, especially when it comes to economic matters.

And also, the problem is not so much that Wells Fargo was forced to take government money – rather, it's that having received this money unwillingly, Wells Fargo is now forced to abide by a myriad of rules and restrictions imposed by Uncle Sam on "stimulus" recipients. Even if Wells Fargo stuffs the money into its safe, promising not to use it, it is now forced to obey these new mandates.