However, as functioning adults, people can realize this and: save up money for their own, friends, and family's future operations, ask for help from friends and families, churches, charities, local people, county governments, state governments, and finally federal government.
The thing that everyone, needs to recognize (especially those who have never gone through seriously hard times because they were fortunate to have been born into a family/community that was able to support them), is that there are a lot of people who don't have the social safety net of family or community.
I was fortunate to have had enough back-up that the last 4 years, while difficult, were a lot easier than they could have been, or are for a lot of people. I had the cash on hand for bail and to afford a lawyer, I had a house, property, savings, retirement (whatever you want to call it) that I was able to sell and tap into to allow me to afford to rent, buy food, pay for medical bills until I could get back to work. I had a friend who had a treehouse in his back yard that his kids used when young where I could sleep and keep my stuff dry after I sold my house and waited for the trial. had family that let me borrow money to meet my needs until my house sold.
I can't imagine how hard life would have been (or would be) if any one of the above weren't true, and most people on the planet don't have the similar social safety net.
(As an aside, let me suggest a little experience that might help folks gain some empathy for those who are homeless. Spend just 1 day without using your indoor faucets for water and see how difficult it is to wash, eat, go to the bathroom, etc. Then imagine preparing for a job interview under the same circumstances.)
My point here is that, in my opinion, our federal government should be the last place someone should go for help.
I agree with what you are saying here. But the help should be adequate to meet the needs. And I agree that the Federal Govt should have less say in what each individual state does.
As it stands, insurance companies have to charge big bucks so that they can pay for those things that never happen, when they do happen.
Well, they also have to charge big bucks to pay for their lawyers who figure out ways for them not to pay out for claims.
Another broad generalization. I'm not advocating for 'socialist rule' I don't know what you mean. I will admit that I am an advocate for policies that benefit the society over the individual. So if that's what you mean by socialist rule, then OK.
Wouldn't it all have worked out better if you had apologized with the injured out of court, made it right with him as far as you could, and never have your license revoked in the first place?
This is a completely separate conversation and I have a lot to say about this (but I won't). Let me just say briefly, that I believe yes, this should have happened, I wanted to do this but the system is not set up that way as I was prohibited from contacting the injured party. Perhaps I needed a better lawyer to force this to happen.
you do believe in moral absolutes?
Yes. There are 2. Love and care for everyone as much as you love and care for yourself. Love
your God with all you heart, mind and soul.
Some things are good, some things are evil, and that is that?
Not sure if this is a question or statement. But to respond, yes, there are choices/actions that are good, and those that are bad.
If we had enough information and could see
all the situations that led up to any given action, we would be able to know if said action was good or bad. Most of the time we don't have all the necessary information, which is why there is a huge 'grey' area when it comes to judging other's choices.
NO government will work if the governed are not moral, even America's great republic.
No argument here.
