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.
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.
What would make insuring such homes profitable in your world?
An irrelevant question after your argument has been shot down
You didn’t shoot down my argument. You just said “nuh-uh.”
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
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?
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Evidently we can’t solve it either, at least not in CA.Edit: [smacks forehead] you said fighting fires, not fire insurance, sorry
Everyone this is sophism in action