It's not about moral equivalence, it's about likelihood of action.
He's saying because the banks are structured a certain way, the government behaves differently than they would otherwise. Namely that the government feels it has a right to the goods/property of the citizenry that they did not have before. I disagree, because governments did things like this without the banks.
Comments
It's not about moral equivalence, it's about likelihood of action.
He's saying because the banks are structured a certain way, the government behaves differently than they would otherwise. Namely that the government feels it has a right to the goods/property of the citizenry that they did not have before. I disagree, because governments did things like this without the banks.
> It's not about moral equivalence, it's about likelihood of action.
It's about both. The top parent can't make this statement
> They would have never gone to a farmer and taken 10% of their grain.
without an assumption of moral equivalence.