>That's the problem. I guess you didn't read the links I posted because it is not a case of property being seized after a trial.
>
>But those links describe completely different situations. Confiscating a vehicle as a punitive response to kerb-crawling or because it was associated with drugs is completely different from the protective measure we were talking about here.

It's exactly the same. The State is confiscating private property. The justification for all seizure laws always comes down to exactly what you're arguing, the ends justify the means in the name of the greater good.

>Any chance you can suggest a better protective measure that cannot be argued to violate the risk originator's rights in some fashion?

License suspension after multiple moving violations works well.

>We reached this point because red light running was used as a metaphor for government taking partial or full ownership of banks that could not survive a liquidity crisis,

We reached this point because you used red light running as a metaphor towards banks bad behavior. You then justified confiscation of private property in the name of the greater good, thus justifying the forced takeover of private companies by the State.

>which is all US banks.

Completely false and it's not even close.

>Recently I reviewed capital ratios of large national banks and was shocked to see tiny capital ratios of around 2% which technically required a FDIC takeover. At least one of those banks continues to insist that it did not need the money, meaning that those people can be expected to resume running the financial red light at the first opportunity.

BofA is coming forward with allegations that not only did the State "encourage" the takeover of Merril, but that It also "encouraged" the leadership to keep quiet about the deal and the state of Merril's assets to their stockholders. This is the same BofA which was later "encouraged" to accept TARP money, forced to undergo a secret test, and is now being "encouraged" to convert it's Treasury held preferred stock to common to enable State control. The State is confiscating the car which may or may not have run a red light, without a trial, because It says so. Seizure laws 101.

>I see no problem at all in government taking shares in exchange for the billions of dollars invested or if government removes the ability of selfish or incompetent people to put us all in danger again.

The government is full of selfish and incompetent people who will put us in danger again. Now you want them in charge of financial institutions?

>Rip me once, shame on you. Rip me twice, shame on me.

Accept contributions, change mandates, accept contributions, de-regulate, watch crisis build, accept contributions, prevent regulation, panic, bailout, bailout, allow fail, to-big-to-fail bailout, TARP, stimulus, bailout, takeover, forced firing, bailout, $11 Trillion debt, $1.75 Trillion budget deficit...at what point do you apply the once, twice logic to the State?