From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Mar 25 2003 - 07:01:12 MST
--- Wei Dai <weidai@weidai.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 24, 2003 at 05:38:30PM -0600, Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > That doesn't make sense to me at all--that would be an incredibly
> > stupid thing for insurance companies to do. If the agressive state
> > announced its intent, then /demand/ for insurance would go up and
> > people would be willing to pay more, and insurance companies would
> > be stupid not to take the business.
>
> The insurers would be stupid to not take the business only if the
> premiums are high enough to cover both their expected military
> costs and the indemnities they'll have to pay off if any insured
> properties are damaged.
> If the targeted area is small enough, the people in it simply won't
> have enough money to pay for the expected costs and damages, even
> if they give all of their incomes to the insurance companies.
Furthermore, if insurance companies in a libertarian society are the
same sort of weasels they are in the real world, an insuror faced with
such a 'hostile takeover' would be far more likely to seek a
settlement, i.e. appeasement, which would result in the de facto
imposition of taxes on an ungoverned area by the insuror(s) in that
area acting as collection agents for the agressor.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
"Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 25 2003 - 07:09:33 MST