And LOL: Assuming we exist? Wtf sort of sophist nonsense is this. In order to assume anything one first has to ACKNOWLEDGE existence and that one exists. These are not assumptions because they are concrete facts inductively and irrefutable deductively (axioms).
Prove to me that I exist beyond reasonable doubt and I'll send you a $1000. You dont even have to give me a donation rank.
Even Descartes "I think therefore I am" has been disregarded by modern philosophers. You wont find a chair of a top university philosophy department that believes she has 100% proof we exist.
And, no, I am not a walking contradiction. I can still posit my arguments based on common assumptions we both make. That does not make ethics objective.
Lol, no they didn't. ( They paid back a tiny, publicised, amount. Research all the bad debt purchased and kept by governments as just one small branch of the massive gov't debt bailout bubble. Here's a recent link:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...illion-in-mortgage-securities-each-month.html ) And even if they had: Where did that interest money come from? Well from the exercise of their monopoly banking privilege and the fraudulent practice of fractional reserve banking.
Quantitative Easing is to control interest rates. It is done mostly with assets of commercial banks, and is done for the benefit of the american individual. Those who disagree with the way the system works can vote for someone who does not support the federal reserve banking system (i.e. Ron Paul), or run themselves and garner support of likeminded individuals.
That is how representative democracy works. I know you're no fan of government, but this is a widely supported system of how politics should be run.
In short, if you ran a company the way ANY bank is run, you'd be in jail. They are operating insolvently and every time a problem crops up with their accounts the gov't steals money from you to pay for the problem.
Then why aren't the people who run banks in jail? Trading while insolvent is illegal in many countries. Leveraging does not make one insolvent, and large banks only tend to risk insolvency in economic crises (such as in 2008). Those that do are allowed to fail, or saved for the benefit of the system, and ultimately, the individual. Again, this decision is made by democratic representatives.
Even if I am wrong on my argument regarding the ethics of QE and bailouts: the fact of the matter is that you would have to prove that the government has an ownership claim to the bank in question, and that the ownership claim gives you, as a taxpayer, the right to "cash out" at any time you desire.
I would argue that there government has no ownership claim over the banks, and even if it did, the individal taxpayer does not have the moral right to cash out when she pleases.
