• rottingleaf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    4 months ago

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

    Humanity is doomed.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            20
            ·
            4 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@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              4 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@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                12
                ·
                4 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.