No, it's not. Further, you imply that the private sector is willing to provide these regulations, which is even more false.

Maybe you should loosen your tinfoil hat up a bit. It's cutting off circulation to your brain.

That's a pretty terrible situation. And it's not a solution to the problem.

No, I'm not. The idea behind libertarianism is that there isn't the needed government oversight.

And just about all Libertarians would disagree with you.

No, it wouldn't have. There was absolutely no evidence at all that the company was failing.

Being "heavily regulated" has absolutely nothing to do with it if the needed regulations aren't in place. There was absolutely no regulations in place that caused the crisis, and those that would have prevented it were relaxed or repealed several years prior.

WRONG. You forget that the banking industry had many of their regulations relaxed, and it was the relaxing of those regulations that caused the crash. Not any of their regulations that were still in force.

As opposed to your faith that the "free market" will keep us safe. That the private sector will have their own inspectors, and private inspectors will take over the role of government inspectors, and everything will be peachy.

Except it won't. Take the recent case of mortgage backed securities. All of the ratings agencies were giving these pieces of shit obscenely high ratings, up until well after it was discovered they were toxic. And why were they doing that? Because of the free market rating system. If the ratings agencies didn't give them inflated ratings, the bond holders would simply take their business to someone who would. You can see the same thing with Orange County debt and one of the ratings agencies. After Orange County declared bankruptcy, and the bonds (which were rated very high) were discharged, people sued the ratings agency. The ratings agency was found not to be liable simply because they "offer advice".

Are you honestly going to tell me that the exact same fucking thing won't happen when private inspectors take over safety? Or food?

Wow, now you've just tilted the playing field even more in the favor of the big company. Tell me, what poor person is going to bother trying to bring such a lawsuit, when they know they could be potentially be liable for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, in legal defense fees?

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Sadly, the bad guys being able to outspend 100:1 means they can hire "experts" to testify on their behalf that the plaintiff is wrong, and therefore muddying the waters enough to where the jury isn't sure, and therefore needs to vote for the defendant.

Such an argument has never been proven, by the way.