From where? You didn’t fund enough to have a fire department. And since you’re so clever as to not pay for support services, wait to you see the cost of your exceptional insurance…
Folks, we either have a sovcit who discovered this group or an anarchist-type just stirring up shit.
Also, what road are the trucks gunna drive on? Cause the trucks are gunna have to carry their own water since there’s no public water lines running for them to use. And all that weight is gunna be hell to drive on dirt roads
This person said below that people should be forced to live in an ancap world even though almost no one wants to, so I think this is some weird form of fascism.
You are ignorant of basic facts about markets. You guys need to go out more, you’d understand why the world is the way it is, and what can be done about it, instead of fantasizing about dystopic worlds. You really are the flat-Earthers of politics.
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.
Did you really choose which firestation was gonna send a truck??
That’s the problem with using a “free market” argument for emergencies, yeah sure it’s great to choose between different emergency providers when there’s nothing happening.
But when a fire starts or you have a heart attack? The nearest Ambulance or Fire Truck that can get you is coming to get you, and you don’t (and can’t) have a choice in which Hospital they’re gonna rush you to, or which fire station that truck came from, all that matters is that it came
Imagine being the first person to answer without insults or smug stupidity since I first commented under this post, and I wasn’t insulting others then.
Did you really choose which firestation was gonna send a truck?? That’s the problem with using a “free market” argument for emergencies, yeah sure it’s great to choose between different emergency providers when there’s nothing happening.
Yes. You need to have at least twice as many firestations to have a choice, if you want to choose between fire services, though.
Or if we are talking only about choosing between insurance companies, then there’s no problem, but with only one fire service and some imagined jungle capitalism you’ll have a problem, because it’ll be very expensive as a monopolist.
I don’t see a problem with having twice as many firestations, as in two parallel services. They don’t have only one landline at the firestation after all. They have HA in any mass service system.
This all is unimportant, though, since it ignores the fact that something like a state fire service, only one separate from police, military and others and with administration formed separately from them is still allowable for ancap. Where membership would be like citizenship in our world, and a member gets the service on usual conditions (but pays something like taxes), while a non-member will pay a lot that one time. It’s similar to state healthcare being free for citizens, but not for foreign nationals in some countries.
Notice how it requires no coercion or monopoly, so perfectly acceptable for ancap.
But when a fire starts or you have a heart attack?
Yes. You need to have at least twice as many firestations to have a choice, if you want to choose between fire services, though.
You’re gonna sit there on your phone trying to decide which fire service to use while your house is literally burning down?
What about people who rent? It’s not their own private property, are they supposed to pay for the whole building being saved? Does it get put on the landlord? He never consented to having his building saved, his tenants just called the fire station when a fire started.
Are the tenants supposed to contact their landlord first so that he can properly consent to having a fire station save his property?
I don’t see a problem with having twice as many firestations, as in two parallel services. They don’t have only one landline at the firestation after all. They have HA in any mass service system.
Well other than now having to pay for double the amount of infrastructure, you now also probably have people who own and profit off the stations, which introduces every normal market pressure, positive and corrupting.
Notice how it requires no coercion
“Pay our massive fee or your house burns down” certainly sounds coercive. You’ve also not established anything to guarantee that a fire station doesn’t develop a monopoly.
See my solution.
If your solution to serious and urgent emergencies like “Oh my god, my house is on fire” or “Oh my god, I’m having a heart attack” is several paragraphs long, you’ve not actually developed a solution, just a hypothetical which shows painfully obviously why we stopped running society like this millenia ago.
You’re gonna sit there on your phone trying to decide which fire service to use while your house is literally burning down?
Why “trying to decide”? One may have some kind of subscription etc. Also finding one quickly, like with taxi and food delivery services, is a demand to be filled. Markets and such.
What about people who rent? It’s not their own private property, are they supposed to pay for the whole building being saved? Does it get put on the landlord? He never consented to having his building saved, his tenants just called the fire station when a fire started. Are the tenants supposed to contact their landlord first so that he can properly consent to having a fire station save his property?
It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation.
Well other than now having to pay for double the amount of infrastructure, you now also probably have people who own and profit off the stations, which introduces every normal market pressure, positive and corrupting.
You’ll pay less, that’s for sure, ask anyone who’ve worked with state services and big organizations. At their job, I mean. I have.
“Pay our massive fee or your house burns down” certainly sounds coercive. You’ve also not established anything to guarantee that a fire station doesn’t develop a monopoly.
It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation.
If your solution to serious and urgent emergencies like “Oh my god, my house is on fire” or “Oh my god, I’m having a heart attack” is several paragraphs long, you’ve not actually developed a solution, just a hypothetical which shows painfully obviously why we stopped running society like this millenia ago.
It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation. Which is one (1) paragraph, not several. Also no, it doesn’t show anything, because you haven’t read it and can’t make such claims.
The paragraph about separation:
This all is unimportant, though, since it ignores the fact that something like a state fire service, only one separate from police, military and others and with administration formed separately from them is still allowable for ancap. Where membership would be like citizenship in our world, and a member gets the service on usual conditions (but pays something like taxes), while a non-member will pay a lot that one time. It’s similar to state healthcare being free for citizens, but not for foreign nationals in some countries.
Now what I don’t understand is why you all refuse to read before commenting.
Why “trying to decide”? One may have some kind of subscription etc. Also finding one quickly, like with taxi and food delivery services, is a demand to be filled. Markets and such.
So you want every person to have to pay for a fire subscription? And if they don’t have one their house burns down or they get extorted?
You’ll pay less, that’s for sure, ask anyone who’ve worked with state services and big organizations. At their job, I mean. I have.
You certainly may have interacted with government during your career, but hearing this is all I needed to hear. There’s nothing objectively different between Government and Private products, sure the private product may be cheaper sometimes, but there’s also plenty of ways the private service could be more expensive, that’s why every business, including the one I used to run, has conversations about cost vs. benefit of private vs. public for certain services.
It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation. Which is one (1) paragraph, not several. Also no, it doesn’t show anything, because you haven’t read it and can’t make such claims.
I have read it, I just didn’t mention it because not only was it irrelevant, it was also wildly incorrect, government services can compete with eachother, and private companies can have a monopoly even without government intervention.
There’s a fundamental difference between most private entities and public entities: the profit motive, which is the reason why private companies’ interests are misaligned with the interests of the people they’re meant to serve in a lot of cases.
The search for profit is the source of a lot of waste of resources that would be better used providing actual services (eg. Marketing for a fire station makes zero sense).
Of course, this applies to entities that provide services and not those that build your phones.
So you want every person to have to pay for a fire subscription? And if they don’t have one their house burns down or they get extorted?
That’s what you have now, only it’s provided by the state. Well, if you don’t have one, you are either an illegal alien or have it free or prosecuted for not paying taxes.
There’s nothing objectively different between Government and Private products, sure the private product may be cheaper sometimes, but there’s also plenty of ways the private service could be more expensive, that’s why every business, including the one I used to run, has conversations about cost vs. benefit of private vs. public for certain services.
I agree, it’s mostly about size and organization, not about ownership.
because not only was it irrelevant, it was also wildly incorrect, government services can compete with eachother, and private companies can have a monopoly even without government intervention.
Well, I’m looking at it and I see it as relevant. Yes, they can, but it’s not necessary for them to be part of the same structure. Yes, they can, but they may be organizations like Mozilla with the supposed goal of delivering the service, not profit. So just like with state services, but separated where no monolithic organization is really required. Also I haven’t said what you are arguing with, so it can’t be wildly incorrect if I haven’t said it, obviously.
You buy insurance like many other people, most of which won’t have a fire. You call them, they come.
From where? You didn’t fund enough to have a fire department. And since you’re so clever as to not pay for support services, wait to you see the cost of your exceptional insurance…
Folks, we either have a sovcit who discovered this group or an anarchist-type just stirring up shit.
Also, what road are the trucks gunna drive on? Cause the trucks are gunna have to carry their own water since there’s no public water lines running for them to use. And all that weight is gunna be hell to drive on dirt roads
Just have trucks with tracks, then they don’t need roads.
See? There’s always an easy solution!
Do you genuinely know the cost of maintaining those tracks? Cause there’s a reason we just use roads
Edit: I made this comment before coffee and see I’m being a bit dumb here haha
This person said below that people should be forced to live in an ancap world even though almost no one wants to, so I think this is some weird form of fascism.
You mean he wants the rest of us to live under neo-feodalism?
There’s no such thing as anarcho-capitalism 🤭
I have no idea. They told me I should learn to code when I tried to get them to explain it.
Removed by mod
You are ignorant of basic facts about markets. You guys need to go out more, you’d understand why the world is the way it is, and what can be done about it, instead of fantasizing about dystopic worlds. You really are the flat-Earthers of politics.
That’s enough thank you.
Ah yes, insurance against fire. I can’t see a problem ever happening there.
Wait, that’s already a problem?
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-23/state-farm-wont-renew-72-000-insurance-policies-in-california-worsening-the-states-insurance-crisis
So if I get this right, your solution is to do something insurance companies aren’t willing to do.
Should they be forced to?
Adding to the pile of stupid questions:
Why don’t the insurance companies just offer it at a higher rate, until it’s profitable for them?
No, it’s not, the article is obviously not in ancap context, it’s in USA, California, 2024 context.
Humanity is doomed.
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.
Everyone this is sophism in action
I’m starting to think this person isn’t just trolling…
If you exchange “buy insurance” for “pay taxes”, you’re awfully close to reality!
The difference is that you choose the insurance company.
Did you really choose which firestation was gonna send a truck?? That’s the problem with using a “free market” argument for emergencies, yeah sure it’s great to choose between different emergency providers when there’s nothing happening.
But when a fire starts or you have a heart attack? The nearest Ambulance or Fire Truck that can get you is coming to get you, and you don’t (and can’t) have a choice in which Hospital they’re gonna rush you to, or which fire station that truck came from, all that matters is that it came
Imagine being the first person to answer without insults or smug stupidity since I first commented under this post, and I wasn’t insulting others then.
Yes. You need to have at least twice as many firestations to have a choice, if you want to choose between fire services, though.
Or if we are talking only about choosing between insurance companies, then there’s no problem, but with only one fire service and some imagined jungle capitalism you’ll have a problem, because it’ll be very expensive as a monopolist.
I don’t see a problem with having twice as many firestations, as in two parallel services. They don’t have only one landline at the firestation after all. They have HA in any mass service system.
This all is unimportant, though, since it ignores the fact that something like a state fire service, only one separate from police, military and others and with administration formed separately from them is still allowable for ancap. Where membership would be like citizenship in our world, and a member gets the service on usual conditions (but pays something like taxes), while a non-member will pay a lot that one time. It’s similar to state healthcare being free for citizens, but not for foreign nationals in some countries.
Notice how it requires no coercion or monopoly, so perfectly acceptable for ancap.
See my solution.
You’re gonna sit there on your phone trying to decide which fire service to use while your house is literally burning down?
What about people who rent? It’s not their own private property, are they supposed to pay for the whole building being saved? Does it get put on the landlord? He never consented to having his building saved, his tenants just called the fire station when a fire started. Are the tenants supposed to contact their landlord first so that he can properly consent to having a fire station save his property?
Well other than now having to pay for double the amount of infrastructure, you now also probably have people who own and profit off the stations, which introduces every normal market pressure, positive and corrupting.
“Pay our massive fee or your house burns down” certainly sounds coercive. You’ve also not established anything to guarantee that a fire station doesn’t develop a monopoly.
If your solution to serious and urgent emergencies like “Oh my god, my house is on fire” or “Oh my god, I’m having a heart attack” is several paragraphs long, you’ve not actually developed a solution, just a hypothetical which shows painfully obviously why we stopped running society like this millenia ago.
Why “trying to decide”? One may have some kind of subscription etc. Also finding one quickly, like with taxi and food delivery services, is a demand to be filled. Markets and such.
It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation.
You’ll pay less, that’s for sure, ask anyone who’ve worked with state services and big organizations. At their job, I mean. I have.
It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation.
It seems you haven’t read the paragraph about separation. Which is one (1) paragraph, not several. Also no, it doesn’t show anything, because you haven’t read it and can’t make such claims.
The paragraph about separation:
Now what I don’t understand is why you all refuse to read before commenting.
So you want every person to have to pay for a fire subscription? And if they don’t have one their house burns down or they get extorted?
You certainly may have interacted with government during your career, but hearing this is all I needed to hear. There’s nothing objectively different between Government and Private products, sure the private product may be cheaper sometimes, but there’s also plenty of ways the private service could be more expensive, that’s why every business, including the one I used to run, has conversations about cost vs. benefit of private vs. public for certain services.
I have read it, I just didn’t mention it because not only was it irrelevant, it was also wildly incorrect, government services can compete with eachother, and private companies can have a monopoly even without government intervention.
There’s a fundamental difference between most private entities and public entities: the profit motive, which is the reason why private companies’ interests are misaligned with the interests of the people they’re meant to serve in a lot of cases.
The search for profit is the source of a lot of waste of resources that would be better used providing actual services (eg. Marketing for a fire station makes zero sense).
Of course, this applies to entities that provide services and not those that build your phones.
deleted by creator
That’s what you have now, only it’s provided by the state. Well, if you don’t have one, you are either an illegal alien or have it free or prosecuted for not paying taxes.
I agree, it’s mostly about size and organization, not about ownership.
Well, I’m looking at it and I see it as relevant. Yes, they can, but it’s not necessary for them to be part of the same structure. Yes, they can, but they may be organizations like Mozilla with the supposed goal of delivering the service, not profit. So just like with state services, but separated where no monolithic organization is really required. Also I haven’t said what you are arguing with, so it can’t be wildly incorrect if I haven’t said it, obviously.
You can’t be sure of that. Some companies have monopolies on certain goods/services.
One thing you can be assured of is that it would be way more expensive, and probably shittier, as is the case with that kind of privatized services.