>>In the case of property insurance (flood, fire or whatever), for me, it should be part of the property tax, increase it if necessary, but everyone paying property tax should be fully insured.

I agree that some of the worst catastrophes need government support. NO is a good example where even the most rabid privateers would agree that socialist fire trucks and National Guard activities were indicated. Without wanting to dwell too much on NZ, in the 1940s a fund was set up to provide compensation for earthquake and war damage, subsequently simplified to earthquake damage including slippage, subsidence and rare unpredictable catastrophes that are difficult to underwrite. A small contribution is taken at the same time as you purchase property insurance and everybody is covered. A moderate fund had accumulated by the 2000s until a series of earthquakes in one town (Christchurch) depleted the fund. FWIW the Christchurch experience was that some insurers preferred dividends or low premiums over competent underwriting, which increased the burden on the state. Seems odd that despite the deluge of evidence to the contrary, some continue to insist that private business does everything better than government. A more likely explanation is that anybody can make hay while the sun shines but once the rains begin, only government can be relied on not to run away.