Raising the spectre of "major economic collapse" at the notion that big corporations might have to operate under the same market conditions and risks as everyone else seems like an argument straight from a corporate lobbyist.

Calling it a spectre makes it sound mythical, but it has been known to happen. The fallacy lies in not having sufficient evidence it will happen in any particular case.

Don't government rescues reward poor management and incentivise excessive risk, thus leading to economic troubles which necessitate them in the first place?

You can reduce risky behaviour by regulation. Baillouts without regulation is the worst possible word.

Especially after you consider the costs imposed on the competent to rescue the failures, and the cost to the economy from uneven competition (between those who can afford to take bigger risks, or simply manage themselves sloppier, knowing that they are "too big to fail", and those who cannot).

Bailouts involve disutility. My argument is that by spreading the costs over more people and more time, they entail less suffering.

Why not answer the points I actually made?

Because I didn't see a point, just a bunch of straw.

Free free to specify the non straw versions.

Because ineffective corporations continuing to exist is less bad in terms of human suffering than major economic collapse.

First, I don't think that is true.

Feel free to support that claim with an argument. There are good reasons for thinking that the collapse of a large financial institution, in particular can cause a domino affect. It's happened before. And it's hardly debatable that recessions cause suffering...the suicide rate goes up, for one thing.

Second, there was a bit of sleight of hand -- you replaced the failure of large corporations with "major economic collapse". That's, um, not exactly the same thing :-/

No, and it's not completely disjoint , neither.

And neither of us have the evidence required to find this point (if indeed it is just one point instead of several optimal peaks). I'm tapping out. If you have any closing points I'll try to take them into account in my thinking. Regardless, it seems like we agree on more than we disagree on.

In the countries I'm most familiar with the socialized health care system is something you want to avoid if you have an alternative.l

Kind of trueish but, not in a way that supports your point, Public healthcare systems tend to be run on something of a shoe string, so an Individual who can easily afford private treatment is often better off with that option, However, that does not translate to the total population or average person.. Analogously , the fact that travelling in a chauffeur limo is more pleasant than travelling on a train, for those who can afford it, is no justification for dismantling public transportation systems. And it's not either/or, anyway.

other stupid government policies.

Ok stupid government bad. But what's the relationship between large government and stupid government? Large government has at least the capacity to hire expert consultants, and implement checks and balances. And there's plenty of examples of autocratic rulers who were batshit crazy.

Well these days a lot of environmental protection laws are insane, 

In the US? Doesn't generalize.

Well, in the US the rule of thumb is that the more control government exercises over schools the worse they are.

Ditto.

In the countries I'm most familiar with the socialized health care system is something you want to avoid if you have an alternative.

Such things are referred to as 'safety nets' for a reason. Falling from the tightrope still isn't advised.