Talk about a cliche scenario. In fact, lets take that analogy and elaborate one more step, to more accurately model the real world you are so proud of living in:

You say that Libertarians want to take the refs off of the field. Well, how about we add actually the Government to that scenario. It is called the State Athletic Commission and we'll say the sport is boxing. The Commission's job is to appoint independent referees and judges.

Now, with that in mind, pretend that the Athletic Commission appointed a top fighter from a top training camp to referee his teammates' or even his competitors' title fights. The player's perception in the camp is also dependent on how well he "referees" or "judges" the fight, i.e. favors his teammate. If he refs in favor of his teammate he will be rewarded for it afterward. Later the Athletic Commission appoints another fighter as ref or judge, probably from the same camp but maybe from another. The thought process being that the fighter is very familiar with the ins and outs of boxing.

Do you think the "ref" in this case would be objective and interested in fair play and the rules or do you think he would be more interested in helping out his team and himself? Why wouldn't he favor his team? That's the whole point of the State Athletic Commission. And even with Commissions there are still problems with reffing and judging in boxing.

Now replace fighter referee with SEC, camp or team with Goldman Sachs or Bernie Madoff or whoever, and State Athletic Commission with the Government.

Why do you think Goldman Sachs and the rest of the banksters would be ecstatic and prefer not existing over everything the Republicans and Democrats have given them over the past year or so?

According to you Goldman Sachs would prefer not existing over existing + a mountain of taxpayer money. Why is that? Why don't the banksters and the other corporations support Libertarians if Libertarians will supposedly give them even more money and power? Why did the banksters donate all that money to Barack Obama and not Ron Paul?

From the same people that were wrong the entire time and were caught with their pants down. People who reflexively defend the Federal Reserve and Ben Bernanke as "that which saved us from unspeakable disaster".

On the other hand, the people that accurately predicted the crisis said something about the Federal Reserve and its easy money policies.

Why should I believe you, a true believing Libertarian-hater repeating things that those who were wrong are repeating, over those who were actually on TV and in print making relevant and accurate predictions and were correct?

Keep pimping your "strong regulations are evolution" made up nonsense while the next Bernie Madoff laughs all the way to the bank. There were lots of strong regulations to catch Mr. Madoff too, but they were ignored. Why is that? Maybe you could tell me since you spend so much time in the real world?

I've actually read the establishment's "not enough regulation" bullshit. You took a guess at Paul's argument being a simplistic "because we left the gold standard". Nice strawman. Shows what you know.

I would call you a name but why bother? You've shown me enough of your ignorance.

Going off the gold standard and the Fed, right? Or is there something else to his obsessive, neurotic views?

He's wrong on both counts. If you're wrong about the why, you can't claim to have "predicted" anything.

Shows what you know. I already answered you questions.

But thanks for doing exactly what I said you would do.

Ron Paul was right. Too bad for you.

Right right. I always forget that it's Libertarians that have bullshit utopian dreams and not top-down progressives who are constantly opining about those same dreams, e.g. Freedom-Loving measures like smoking bans and liquor bans and other top-down nanny state interventions.

Tell me about the Utopian Progressive Plan to fix Afghanistan. Tell me about the Progressive Utopian Plan to get Americans to quit smoking. For their own good. There are hundreds of these coercive, authoritarian "progressive" plans laying around. Just pick one.

And since I answered your question maybe you can answer mine? It's very simple.

Q: If it were up to Libertarians, too big to fail would not be too big to fail, and the banksters would have failed. How would those failed banksters be ecstatic that Libertarians have control if they no longer exist?

Would the banksters be ecstatic to not exist, as opposed to just happy being existing and being handed hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money so that they may continue to exist?

So please tell me, would Goldman Sachs be ecstatic not existing as opposed to just being happy and existing with billions if taxpayer dollars?

According to you the answer would be yes, care to explain?