Insurance should not be for profit, and things like e.g. State Farm suddenly cancelling people's renters/fire insurance just two weeks before the fires (I am one of those people) are what people hate about insurance. No one is arguing that insurance is bad at risk assessment, but rather how they wield their proficiency with it.

State Farm is a mutual insurance company, so it's owned by its policy holders. It's not quite non-profit, but it's in the same ballpark. I've gotten money back from State Farm one year when they (we, I guess) made too much money.

Why does State Farm in particular have a moral obligation to insure you against fire if it’s not profitable for them to do so?

To pick random examples of unrelated companies, McDonalds or SpaceX would also refuse to insure you against fire. Why should people hate State Farm for this reason, but not McDonalds or SpaceX?

If State Farm didn’t exist and the state ran insurance instead, and were willing to insure all comers, they’d be subsidizing people who can’t be insured profitably. That’s not crazy on its face (the state subsidizes lots of different things), but it’s at least worth asking why we should be paying for people to live in high-fire-risk areas rather than any number of other things the state could be spending those resources on.

If you only had two weeks notification, you should file a complaint with the commissioner here:

https://www.insurance.ca.gov/01-consumers/101-help/index.cfm

It's likely that you are not alone, but I've not heard of anybody not getting notification, despite a lot of people not getting renewed.

State Farm notified its customers in August of its non-renewal (not cancelling) of policies, plenty of time for homeowners to get new policies or fall back to the state fund.

And what is fire insurance? Is that something unique to CA?