From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 23:29:32 +0800
To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
Subject: Re: Question about insurance managed fire services...
Message-ID: <199811111459.PAA27953@replay.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Jim Choate writes:
> > From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>
> 
> > Jim Choate writes:
> > > 
> > > How does company A guarantee that company B won't begin to burn down the
> > > customers of company A so that the economic impact on A is sufficient they
> > > can't participate in the market?
> > 
> > How does it do so now?
> 
> Insurance regulatory agencies who monitor the behavior, investigation by a
> reasonably impartial fire dept after every fire. That's at least two.

You really are naive, Jim. Do you think that insurance regulatory 
agents follow around after all of the insurance companies' employees
to ensure they aren't starting fires?

Or do you suppose that in an anarcho-capitialistic society (unlike 
the current sainted `democratic' society), company A would be so
stupid as to make the burning of competitors' houses an official
company policy which would be found out `if only' there were a 
government regulator watching it? How long do you suppose that
company A can get away with burning down the homes of its competitors
before its agents are caught in the act (by company B's investigators
if no one else)? No, Jim, such behavior would clearly not be in the
best interests of company A's stockholders (that is, it would not be
`profitable').

Any why, in a private contractual situation, would the `fire department'
not be impartial? How does the government-provided fire department
have any advantage in impartiality?


> > Fucking idiot. Do you imagine that the customers of company A (and
> > their police, security force or other guardian) will stand idly by
> > while their homes (the implied target) are burned?
> 
> What police and security forces?

The police or security force that the customer contracts with to
protect their home of course. Idiot. These exist now in cooperation
with government-provided police (though some might naively imagine 
them to be redundant). Either you are simply being disingenuous or
you really are this stupid.

>                                  You mean the ones the same insurance
> company co-oped?

Context, Jim, context. This makes no sense whatsoever without more
context. What insurance company are you talking about? And why does
an insurance company necessarily have a direct relationship with a 
security service provider? Or did you mean `co-opted' (a different
word altogether)?


> What makes you thing that Company A or B will even advertise their actions?
> 
> Who says the homes will be burned when the residents are even home? It isn't
> like anyone is going to ask their permission.

Indeed. So what prevents anyone from doing this now? I suggest you
pretend you had a brain and try to think this through for yourself.
There simply isn't anything magical about government-provided services.
(While you are doing so, it might be instructive to remember that
prior to the late 18th century, there was no such thing as a
government-provided police force. Yet, people were still able to have
houses without insurance companies burning them down.)



> And I'm the 'fucking idiot'.

This you have amply and repeatedly demonstrated.