reply to post by poet1b
No. While fair and reasonable may seem the same in the everyday use of the english language, they are two entirely different concepts in philosophy
and political science - and since this is law - they are appropriate disciplines to draw from.
For a law to be fair, it must be reasonable. The opposite is not true. Fairness is not necessary nor sufficient to establish whether a law is
reasonable. A fair law would ensure equality of results, a reasonable law only requires ensuring equality of opportunity.
You can dispute a contract based only on the court's perception of reasonableness - and that does not
include whether the contract is "fair"
(as I thought we agreed on). Those standards of reasonableness basically encompasses the case law of good faith contract precedent, which includes:
(1) whether the terms and conditions were known to both parties in full before agreement, (2) whether either party was coerced into an agreement, and
(3) relief for externalities not addressed in the contract specifications.
Somehow you don't seem to connect with the reality that recovering money within the span of the law does not use tax payer money. When a creditor
uses a bill collector agent - this costs nothing to the tax payers. If someone sues, court costs can be forced to be paid by the losing party. No
money is used by tax payers, because the methods to collect do not involve using government power. When I say within the span of the law, that means
banks should not do anything that is illegal to get their money: black mail, illegal threats, etc.
The difference between you and me is you think it is the governments job to punish business. I say the banks can stand or fall on their own merits. If
they go under because they leant out risky loans, so be it. If they recover the properties and don't go under, so be it. If you want to use the
government to punish businesses then are setting a bad precedent - by the way, that would also be costing tax payer money - I thought that was a
concern for you?
I would advise you to actually read what I post - it would save you from saying things that are lies:
Originally posted by poet1b
You want the government to act to protect the banks, but not the people who borrow from banks. This is a double standard, and there is nothing
reasonable about it.
See, this is why actually reading what I say is important if you are going to argue with me:
Originally posted by LightinDarkness
If it the banks fail, oh well. Government should not protect the banks.
So much for a double standard. I would however submit that reading what I type before making sweeping generalizations is indeed reasonable.
By the way, given your seeming inability to read what I say I'd be careful about telling me "what I want" in government. What I want is a
government that does not interfere unless someone is deprived of their God given right to life, liberty, and property.
[edit on 27-12-2007 by LightinDarkness]