• @rottingleaf
    link
    -194 months ago

    No, it’s not, the article is obviously not in ancap context, it’s in USA, California, 2024 context.

    Humanity is doomed.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      194 months ago

      What would make insuring such homes profitable in your world?

      • @rottingleaf
        link
        -244 months ago

        An irrelevant question after your argument has been shot down

        • Flying Squid
          link
          194 months ago

          You didn’t shoot down my argument. You just said “nuh-uh.”

          • @rottingleaf
            link
            -194 months ago

            Your argument is in the wrong context -> it’s invalid -> shot down.

            You’re simply denying things you don’t like and pretend to be winning something somewhere. Go away

            • Flying Squid
              link
              174 months ago

              You said insurance would cover firefighting.

              I’m saying insurance can’t afford to do that now.

              Your response to that is “the ancap world isn’t like the world now.”

              Yes, I know. So what’s the difference?

              • @rottingleaf
                link
                -104 months ago

                A company may not be able to afford prolonging contracts without raising prices, but otherwise be able to fulfill this role.

                Maybe people shouldn’t settle in places too prone to fires.

                Maybe there’s some regulation involved in the first sentence which won’t be in ancap.

                Whatever. Ancap being worse than alternative in some criterion doesn’t mean defeat of ancap, ancap being better in some other criterion doesn’t mean victory of ancap.

                • Flying Squid
                  link
                  124 months ago

                  Dude, you can’t solve the problem of fighting fires for everyone regardless of where they live or how much money they have, something we’ve already solved.