> Force a bank to accept a governmental purchase of a new class of preferred stock. Now, as the owner of this stock, the government can make demands regarding how the business is run, including, as you suggest, releasing private data to the public.
>
>Generally you give up your right to privacy if you choose to make your situation public- which is only fair, so that others can have their version aired as well.

Wrong. Making a situation public does not demand that you release any and all private information. If so our current president would've released the full details of his birth certificate and college transcripts by now. Only when these matters go to court and through the process of discovery must all private data relevant to the case at hand be made available.

>In this case all we have is hearsay that an unnamed banking president says his bank did not need TARP money and was threatened with an audit unless he took it. First, it's hearsay. Second, we need context to judge whether he did have a liquidity problem in which case refusal of TARP money justifies an audit.

First, it's not one bank president, his case has been brought to the forefront of media scrutiny recently as his bank is considered "big" but he is not alone.

Second, we, the general public, do not need nor are entitled to a summary examination of a private company's holdings. If the stockholders demand such an examination, that is their right, not the State's. If they say they do not need liquidity, then do not force it upon them. If they fail, so be it.

>The government should not be involved in the purchase, subsidization or bailout of any private entity.
>
>There's mounting evidence that shareholders with no stake in a local community will fleece it in the interest of short-term profit. Apart from the banking screw-up, deferred maintenance of utilities and scooping all profit as dividends rather than planned investment has become all too common.

There's ample evidence that government interference via environmental regulation, excessive taxation/fees, bureaucratic incompetence and legal repression has directly altered the dynamics of traditional market forces to the point of fundamentally changing the way business must operate to obtain a profit. It's the same old protection racket the mob used to run, just that when you paid the mob they'd leave you alone, the State comes back for more and more and then still seeks to flatten you.

>IMHO essential industries that have been vested in private ownership are likely to gravitate towards public ownership and/or increased oversight, for the rest of our lives.

Which, of course, is the exact outcome that Statists have been working towards in the US for 80+ years. Congratulate them, they are about to drive the final nail in the coffin of the individual over the State.