It's an analagous moral hazard, though. Even if bringing a bank down threatens the banking system, it must be done otherwise banks act with impunity. It's little different with bankers and "stupid and illogical law" - if we rely on discretion for which laws we apply, then we're entirely corrupt. We must apply the laws we have and live with the consequences, otherwise we don't live in a lawful society.

I see this as an absolute. I don't really see how it can be otherwise.

There wasn't a singpe mention of "bringing down banking system" here. Once again, you arguing without reading first.

Now I know it's you that isn't reading! The comment I replied to explicitly said "it could trigger a collapse of the entire financial system".

This is the justification that sievebrain used for the selective application of what he considers to be poor laws.

I say we need to enforce poor laws too, because otherwise it's rule by men, not laws.