Forwarded message:

Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 15:59:32 +0100 From: Anonymous <nobody@replay.com> Subject: Re: Question about insurance managed fire services...

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?

No, and exactly how you managed to derive that is truly humorous.

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

Until somebody either squeels (not likely since they're dead shortly afterward or let loose and nobody will hire then from then on, not in the business' best interest.) or they do get caught and a connection is made (not very likely since the perp won't be carryin an employee badge). And since company A is the company that will be prosecuting (their own under-the-table employee) the consequences are pretty predictible. How commen is it now for business' to partake in illegal activities in order to further their business ends? How often do you suppose, given that rate, they are caught? I'd say not a lot. I see no reason to suspect that in a anarcho-whatever society that rate will be one whit better.

before its agents are caught in the act (by company B's investigators if no one else)?

Oh, they'll get caught occassionaly but then again, the strategy of forcing company B to keep investigators on call and monitoring their customers property is a good strategy to raise their cost of doing business and as a result their coverage rates. This increase will help convince user of B's service that A looks like a better bang for the buck.

No, Jim, such behavior would clearly not be in the best interests of company A's stockholders (that is, it would not be `profitable').

Sure it would, it decreases the cost of doing business and increases the potential market for future consumers of the services. It happens all the time now, it won't go away.

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?

Because their funds and income is from a known source. Ask yourself this, what happens if a police officer or a fire inspector suddenly starts driving a Porche around and moving out into the uppity neighborhoods and doesn't have a good explanation for it?

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)?

Apparently I've strained your short-term memory here, go back and read it again. Which insurance company is obvious - all of them. I'm done now, this isn't about anarcho-anything, this is about you getting your jollies off trying to take cheap shots at me personaly. Whoopie. ____________________________________________________________________ Lawyers ask the wrong questions when they don't want the right answers. Scully (X-Files) The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------