>I am sorry but the assumption about "Armageddon" lives entirely in your imagination, i.e. it cannot be proven.
>
>If you want to go down that path, scientists and philosophers say that *nothing* can be proven. Including your own opinions and beliefs about the world. So where are you hoping to go with that?
>
>It surprises me that you use comparatively mild case of government interference to make blanket statements covering practically any case of interference including some already happened.
>
>We are discussing a particular case in which government "interference" was involuntary. Approving of government action in these matters is completely different from advocating government interference in general. I'd also observe (again) that this is a story about market failure and incompetence with government stepping in reluctantly to clean up, not the other way around as you may have preferred.
>
>Whether car manufacturer bail-outs are proper depends on whether you believe that a US car industry is useful for the US- assuming that manufacturers will indeed collapse if they don't receive funding, a concept which has not yet been "proven."
>
>With all due respect, I'm not going to buy into all this divinity stuff you keep coming up with. This is a man-made problem with a man-made solution which in this case involved government doing something right. Happy to discuss any aspects of that.

One cannot prove that Armageddon was imminent and government intervention was mandatory to avoid it by two simple reasons: firstly, nobody saw the Armageddon, and, secondly, if it was so close then it might happen that government intervention just made it even closer and it will happen tomorrow. Basically, you claim bailouts as a success before they produced any positive results. It means that it is not my position that could be labeled, as you hint, as baseless obstructionism.
Approving something in particular, based on general arguments, has every relation to approving in general. Government is always right, because it knows better is the most general argument available.
So, you support car-maker bailout or not? I would even put this question wider, using your own words. Do you believe that any company that is determined as 'useful for the US should be bailed out?
I am also disappointed that you pretend not understanding 'divinity' allegory. It is clearly coming from your argumentations, and I went in great length to explain it in details. Your reluctance to understand my points (I don't expect you to agree but understanding is a minimum requirement) makes further discussion moot. You keep saying that government doing something helpful so it is right. Well, I cannot argue with so strong belief, and I have no intention to change it.