If this were an AnCap scenario, their would be no Fed help, but those Montana firefighters who werent allowed to help would have had to help for free, since Texas didnt have enough money.
(If they had enough money, there would have been effective fire prevention to begin with)
Texans (not Texas, people have money, not areas of land) would almost certainly have had the money, possibly with the assistance of insurance that would kick in for sufficiently significant (and hence rare) cost to contain. They would not likely have all the trained personnel and equipment instantly available, however, since that would not be cost effective -- such equipment and personnel would be much better "shared" with those in other areas, since such fires don't tend to occur everywhere at once. When they do exceed the immediately available resource, the marketplace -- which will allocate those resources to those willing to pay the most, i.e., those with the most to lose, will come into play.
I see. So in the event of an emergency or disaster, AnCap isnt such a utopia after all. Because the always fair and balanced (yet invisible) hand of the markets get to decide who lives and who dies.
And the poor and hard-working are the ones left homeless and bereft. Or just dead and washed away, because they didnt have enough money to bribe the emergency responders to come soon enough or stay long enough.
Anyone who has ever made a large claim on their insurance knows that insurance comes in once it is safe and then tries to tell you that your claim is not valid.
Because you see, insurance companies are businesses first, and compassionate a distant second.
And all companies collude. Its called "industry standard practice." Even in an AnCap world, no insurance company is going to pay out everything that is claimed; how would they make any money?
So you see, I would rather have our oh-so-imperfect current system than have a disaster response system that starts with the phrase, "May I have your credit card number, please?"
