> We also have bonding, insurance and civil liability, which serve the same purpose in a more flexible way.
Those solutions are useful, but only sometimes work and when they do they only provide money after the fact. In many cases, such as injury, death, or crippling fraud (e.g., an elderly retiree loses their home and savings), that's not sufficient.
The way insurance works is that risky behavior leads to higher premiums. Insuring a sports car is more expensive because studies show risky driving is associated with sports cars.
Hosts that don't treat neighbors respectfully or guests safely will quickly see bonds confiscated and premiums raised until they are out of the business.
Likewise, insurers often provide discounts for good behavior like taking safety courses, a history without incidents, installing anti theft devices, etc.
And requiring insurance also gives neighbors a recourse (payouts from the policy) if the block is set on for or something (though there are already laws and regulations about that sort of thing).
> And requiring insurance also gives neighbors a recourse (payouts from the policy) if the block is set on for or something
No, legal liability rules give the neighbors recourse. What insurance and/accountability bond requirements do is reduce the risk that insolvency will prevent a liability judgment from being satisfied (though one which exceeds the required coverage may still not be fully satisfied if the liable party is insolvent.)
> I am unaware of any "sufficient" solution in any field. Despite millions of pages of regulations, people are still being injured, killed or defrauded.
No solution is perfect. Planes still crash; should we do away with the FAA?
We also have bonding, insurance and civil liability, which serve the same purpose in a more flexible way.