For all intensive purposes it's considered a "failed state" so they basically don't really have a government.    One didn't exist at all between 1991 and 2004 and the one "in control" now basically has no power. 

It's about as much a government as the UN is a World government.  Though the UN on occasion actually gets someting done.

Or to put it another way

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lCPXEARpE8

Oh my, this should be a Libertarian's dream land.

Libretarian's aren't Anarchists.  They believe that it's the governments job to be an impartial referee.

The only positive I can see towards a Libretarians belief system is it basically rebuts the liberal claim that the rich should pay more because the rich benefit more from the government existing.

When the government disapears, the rich take their place.

Hmmm, I wouldn't really say that. When the market if too free and unregulated corporations become too big and gain too much power. They'll start corrupting the Government and avoid what little regulations there are. Isn't that what basically happened in your country that led to the crisis?

And don't the rich really benefit from the existence of a Government, in the sense that they only have wealth in the context of a society? And doesn't the Government protect their wealth? (And don't they essentially control the Government anyway?)

Having actually been suicidal in the past, I have suffered from depression many times over the years. I even attempted suicide at least three times that I remember. Fact is today I am glad those attempts failed, when your depressed truly depressed you don't think logically when your suicidal you don't think "Wow if I do this I will never grow old, have children , find love" instead all your thinking is "Yayz finally it will all be over".

As for the idea that if your depressed for a decade and see no future you should be allowed to kill yourself. Well I was bullied in school and had a rough childhood (Divorced family, living below poverty level for Canada) I was suicidal from 5 years old till I was about 19. Though I came and went from being suicidal during those years I was constantly depressed. Today I still get depressed sometimes (Haven't been suicidal in a while) while I can understand it being an easy out, it is not acceptable and should remain illegal.

Also the whole were selfish and worrying only about those people's impact on us. That we should be supportive of their suicide because its selfish for us to only think of ourselves. The exact same can be said about suicide, I know I've been suicidal, I wasn't thinking "Oh some people love me, I have friends and family who will be devestated". All that I thought was "Soon it will all be over and all my problems will go away, no one will hurt me anymore". Well guess what sure I wouldn't be hurt anymore but I'd certainly hurt anyone who cares about me. I can just imagine how hurt my family and friends would be if I commited suicide. or what about the poor friend or family member who finds the body and is scarred mentally for the rest of their life.

As for people suffering. You talk about the guy with no legs and arms. Well my aunt has all three forms of arthritus and was told she'd be dead when she turned 19. However she just turned fifty, she is in a wheel chair and cannot walk , she is in constant pain. She lives in a home for people who can't walk and suffer serious disabilities. I visit that home and am suprised everyone is smiling and they all live happy lives. All of them that I've talked too at one point were also suicidal but they came to a realization of their disability and self worth. These people are amazingly inspiring.

My aunt is one of the most passionate and happy person I know while also the most suffering that I have ever seen a person endure. Now all of these disabled people were suicidal at one point or another, but live happy lives now. If they had committed suicide they would have missed out on all these great things.

As for euthonasia, my great grandma lived to 105. By the time she reached 100 she could no longer see, walk, taste anything or hear. She was very uncomfortable and her husband died while she was in her ninties. Origionally she said I just want to make it past 100. But after she reached 100 she was beginning us to kill her.  Now in this case I felt sorry for her because she was simply living with no enjoyment what so ever, all her senses were gone pretty much. I agree it sucked but is that really when you pull the plug? People live horrible lives all over the world at points yet we don't kill all of them. In the end my grandma was always happy to have visitors and mentally while she was suicidal she would always talk for hours, laugh and such. She may have been depressed but she was still human and she shouldn't be killed for the same reasons a suicidal or disabled person shouldn't. Also had she lived past 105 she may have come to the realisation that she could still do things. Who knows she might have turned around like the disabled people did.

Now their is only one kind of mercy killing I agree with. If someone has been a vegetable for 5-10 years, is on life support and has no signs they will get better. Then yes I believe it is right to pull the plug. However I have a friend who's mom was recently in hospital, they put her in a medically induced coma. However when they tried to pull her out they couldn't. She was in the comma for a few months. Finally the doctors came to the mother and son and asked them to decide whether to pull the plug or keep trying to get him out. they never gave up hope she was on life support and in the coma. They said no don't pull him off. Well guess what a few days later she came out of the comma and eventually off life support. She is now living a great life.

My uncle was fighting cancer and fell down a flight of stairs getting knocked into a comma. The doctors did the same thing asking my fellow family members whether or not to take him off. However they said no and just like my friends mom he recovered and is back to living a good life.

On the other hand I know of a guy in a comma who has been in one for nearly 20-years almost as long as I a have been alive. His family still hopes he makes it, but if the family chose to let him die after all these years then I'd think that would be okay.

But I think suicide and euthonasia and even abortion should be illegal. Killing a human being should be an absolute last restort. Only done to save another humans life or if the person has been on life support in a comma for 5-10 years!

No.  It's not like the US housing bubble was the only housing bubble.

What caused it... was more or less government.

It's a rather complicated thing to explain, but i'll try to put it simply.

Wealth isn't physical.   So if someone makes a videgame that sells only in his own country, he still raises his GDP because he's created something of "value."

Bankers have been doing the same thing, by creating complicated morgage payments and insurance. They created so much wealth, that basically if you wanted to "buy" all this wealth.  It would cost you 20 times the amount of money that exists in the world.  So without it at this point... we'd be in trouble.

They did this basically making "Protection payments" to each other and other buisnesses to cover them if they fail.

In the US, they were structured so that they would never collapse unless there was a nationwide housing bubble.  Which basically a guranteed win... because up until 2006... there was no thing as a nationwide housing bubble!

It's normally impossible in a country like the US.  As prices fall in one area of the country, they rise in other areas... because there is always a "hot" are to live in, and it's all regional.

As such, the US found the way to make the impossible possible... and began a bunch of initatives to drive house buying... by tax incentives and artificially lowering interest rates and even ordering banks it controlled to make riskier loans. (the so called sub prime loans.)

So it created a nationwide boom in housing prices, because so many more people wanted to buy and build houses.

This eventually lead to a nationwide bust... because a lot of the people who bought houses either bought houses they couldn't afford, or just weren't the types to be able to keep up on payments at all.

This caused an unusual number of people to bankrupt which caused those people who were being paid money to actually have to pay the people who were paying them.  Which then lead to them having to up the rates on the morgages they owned and forclose on people who they previously gave extensions to beacause they needed the money.

The increase in rates caused people regular people to forclose because while living responsibly they weren't ready for their rates to explode.  Which caused even more of a shortfall, which caused rates to go even higher...

well you see the point.

People argue the derivitives were the problem, but in a normal market... they would of never crashed... meanwhile, we probably wouldn't even be as well off now had the "proper" controls be in place.

I mean, take out 20 times the value of the world currencies out of the economy... and where are we exactly?

It's a lot like blaming someone for not having purchased expensive volcano insurance when they live next to a volcano that's been dormant for 1000 years because you weren't expecting a government bomb suddenly reigniting it.

Well, all my information regarding this subject comes from the documentary Inside Job. What they were saying in it made a lot of sense, but due to my limited knowledge in economics I can't really write a satisfying counter-argument to what you wrote. You do seem to be a Wall Street apologetic though.

The above and inside job are in no way incongruent, outside of the fact that most people blame wallstreet for not buying Volcano insurance.

The economic thesis pretty much the same from what i can tell of it.

It just ignores the fact that financial instutions didn't influence government... it was that government wanted this to happen from the onset.  Afterall the real uptake in subprime morgages happened under the Democrats... by specific mandate of the demcrats for political gain. (By making the american dream more possible for americans everywhere."

Not under the Republicans who deregulated the sector. 

The demand existed, because the government artificially created it.

Heck, look at the people who predicted the economic crisis.  They include Libretarian Ron Paul.  Most of the people who predicted it were republicans as far as I can tell.  I mean, people did see this coming and were saying "Hey this is coming!"

So to blame Libretarians for this seems... wrong.  Since they were the ones saying "we've got to stop this before it happens."

I think your problem lies in that you think Libretrains ideas on government are "No regulations."  When it's real ideas are "Enforce regulations so things are fair".

They don't want government to play sides.

Which would make them right even if you did take Inside job's story as the truth.

Well, since we're talking about that documentary, it was saying that the Government was controlled/influenced by Wall Street, hence why it was doing, so any actions the Government did were because of Wall Street. The ideea was that the financial deregulations started by Reagan gave Wall Street the opportunity to become strong enough to have such an influence on the Government in the first place (whether it was run by Democrats or by Republicans).

Of course your ideea that the Government was doing it for political gain may be true, I'm sadly not informed enough on this matter.

If you are incapable of providing someone hope and getting them out of a situation where the feel it is better to off themselves, you are weak.  This is a statement of reality.  Anyhow, no one said human beings are particularly strong and not weak.  The "they" here refers to humanity, and its inability to instill hope and help people when things are really bad, due to their limitations.  Supporting suicide is being pwned by the nature of things, because you CAN'T offer people any other option, so you feel killing them is acceptable alternative, because saying alive is see as cruel and pitiful.