Recently, when I was renewing my apartment lease, the landlord informed me that I also needed to renew my renter’s insurance, of which “proof of insurance coverage” is required, otherwise I would not be allowed to sign the renewal contract (it’s probably the declarations page, but seriously, how the hell am I supposed to know this shit?). So, when I called the insurance agent, I was informed by one of his staff that the reason the annual fee jumped by an atrocious $50 was because of all the claims they’ve received this past year due to various bad weather here in Texas.
With that as background, here is my question for the sychophantic anarcho-capitalists who incessantly drum up the virtues of their hypothetical dispute resolution organizations (DROs): What is to prevent any DRO from passing on the costs of satisfying some customers onto the rest of their clientele who did not engage the active services of said DRO? Remember, these libertarian anarchists have consistently maintained that DROs are essentially insurance companies who also provide some level of security and criminal investigative services; if that is indeed the case, then what in God’s name would be the disincentive for them to not perform what is essentially corporatist behavior? Shouldn’t it be the insurance company that bears the expense of satisfying those claims, instead of jacking up the premiums on other customers who didn’t file any such claims? Isn’t such a business practice indicative of how corporate taxes are shuffled off to be borne upon the shoulders of customers, lower-level employees, and even sometimes share-holders?
It is nearly impossible to rent an apartment in Texas without also paying for renter’s insurance. Since I have now found out that it is cheapest when it is never used (by other customers, no less), then what good is it? It’s not as if I am in serious danger of needing to file a claim anytime soon, and even if I ever did, I would have to somehow reconcile myself to the fact that in order for my claim to be satisfied, other customers are going to have their premiums seriously jacked up. Would I want to be responsible for siphoning away other people’s hard-earned savings to a faceless insurance corporation that has unscrupulous business practices? Oh, and its not as if I haven’t considered upping and leaving their damn ass; sadly, it turns out that even with the serious jack in the premium, my current rental insurance provider is still noticeably cheaper than each of the other insurance quotes I called around and asked for.
My, oh my….what is a libertarian to do in such a pickle? It’s just a shit storm with no easily discernible answer that I can fathom on my own. Perhaps any real solution is somewhat long-term and entails me moving out of the damn city already and into the sticks by buying real estate and then building my own house on it. Not that I would mind, but it requires quite a significant investment of capital to make that happen, which is why I am renting for the foreseeable future.
If any of you can provide me with a serious answer to my primary question (as stated above), then please leave a comment below. For the privacy conscious types, feel free to email me instead.