I get that a "true libertarian" (shades of "no true scotsman?") wouldn't want any of my suggestions about legislation and that private insurance is available (a

I get that a "true libertarian" (shades of "no true scotsman?") wouldn't want any of my suggestions about legislation and that private insurance is available (as my original post mentioned). I understand "libertarian in theory" ... I am waiting however for a libertarian from Silicon Valley to say that we should have let all these Silicon Valley entities fail for being stupid with their finances in this very real-world scenario. Help me understand a more moderate libertarian position. We tried more libertarianism in the 2018 legislation that removed some of the need for hedging for SVB and look where it got us. How does libertarianism help us from here? I don't mind a little libertarianism... But it seems to me if the savvy Silicon Valley folks can't manage their payroll risk with all their smarts, what about payroll for a bank in some more ordinary US city? I am not a fan of government intervention particularly and the moral hazard of guaranteeing all depositors disturbs me. But despite that, I also don't really consider SVB a one-off... it seems to me that SVB is just one of many (hopefully smaller) banks with this whole "class" of interest rate maturity risk that is far worse in an environment of raising interest rates. I remember in 2008 how much got sucked out of money market funds in a few days when the previously-theoretical-risk of breaking the buck in uninsured accounts started money moving at velocities that nobody was really prepared for. So while I would have preferred more guardrails around how much depositors were covered, I also can't bring myself to completely condemn FDIC risking moral hazard to ensure stability to try to avoid psychological contagion spreading to a LOT more banks. The problem is that libertarianism and preventing bank runs just seems to me like problems with "unrestricted short selling" or "calling fire in a crowded theater"... if you don't impose checks on it, the incentives for malicious behavior are so great (and the costs to being malicious so small) as to be counter-productive. Why not go all the way to anarchy? Do you really think market forces will magically govern against abuse and malicious claims without the force of the state? It would seem to devolve to mafia land where powerful factions just agree not to mess with each other and you have to have "pull" to get protection... which is exactly the critique Ayn Rand had of socialistic governments. I was curious to hear what people say and despite my post getting downvoted to -2 points at present (it wasn't worded particularly well to avoid misinterpretation) I do appreciate all the replies.