Necessity. We need the banks to work, and people to be employed in our economy. So the good of the whole was the justification. Frankly I don't agree with it, at least not the way it was done. So if I don't agree with the bail outs of artificial person's (I don't even agree with the concept of and artificial person, I understand why it was done though) why would I agree with the bail outs of inidividuals.

I have no idea what rational actor theory is, but yes an individual is does not have to be given the privalages of an artificial person. The government loaned them that money, nothing says they have to give you the same thing. No where in the constitution does it garuntee you equal financial treatment by the government, only equal status under the law. As the bail out was not really a legal matter, but a financial matter then you have no rights comparative to the dreaded artificial persons.

In short you don't bring jack to the nation, and your individual well being is not relied upon by millions of americans so you don't fall under the general welfare clause of the constitution. The congress is free to ingore you as they see fit.





[qoute]
We are no longer in the Iron Age to justify those obsolete morals.
[/quote]
Ethics in morals are still the same iron age or no. Technology doesn't effect morals as much as you seem to think. The idea of "you reap what you sow" is still the basis for much of our morality.




And you are paid for your work, not for not working. At will employment is a good idea in some respects. In others its bad, as you can be let go with no warning.