Except "death" is not a viable nor reasonable choice for a human being, while bankruptcy and/or liquidation are both very normal and reasonable choices for an o

Except "death" is not a viable nor reasonable choice for a human being, while bankruptcy and/or liquidation are both very normal and reasonable choices for an organization especially if that organization got itself into that trouble in the first place and had it been any other (smaller) business, this would have instantly been the end of it. The very fact that the government even stepped in is a major exception to the system as a whole, so this is more like the flying spaghetti monster sending you back to earth after your suicide and you then wanting to sue His Noodly Appendage for not having been able to play the lottery on the day of your death and/or not picking up Charon's ferry bill for you. And there is no law against offering a tough deal when the odds are stacked for you and your partner has their back against the wall - a principle the banks and insurances use and (strongly) abuse each and every day against those who have no choice. Again, had this been some even-bigger-money-giant buying AIG out and then running the place into the ground again, it would have also been the end of it. They are twisting a rule that was obviously meant to keep capitalism and business separate from government just to get some money out of it when without that governmental divine intervention they would not even be existent in the first place. I am all for playing devil's advocate and looking at the flip-side of things and great you made an attempt but, sorry, this is wrong on so many levels, there is no right way of looking at it.