I'm not sure that people had a stronger moral compass in the past! People did all sorts of heinous things and then got a free pass with a confession... On the other hand, the norms were different back then, so it is difficult to recast our current morality into the past!
The thing that caught my eye was the car insurance. Surely, that is the third party insurance that is mandated? So that it is certain that you can cover the damage you do to other people, whether you can cover the damage to yourself or not is your own problem. But if you can't cover the damage to someone else because you go bankrupt that is a problem for someone else?
In the case of insurance that is how they sell the mandate to the masses; to cover yourself against causing damage to yourself OR others. If I carry insurance on anything it is for damage that is done to it regardless of the source. The mandate to have coverage for doing damage not recieving it is an out for your insurance carrier to charge another insurance carrier instead if having to pay out themselves. Insurance in general is a scam but this particular instance shows how the populace is sold a line of goods to benefit the insurance company, that lobbies and pays off politicians to have laws passed to their benefit. The insurance that you choose to carry is supposed to cover any damage recieved, so if someone without insurance hits you, your company is supposed to cover you.
Interesting, maybe the laws are somewhat different in the United States (sorry, I'm assuming that's where you are from). As far as I understood over here, there are two parts.
The first party part (receiving damage) is optional as long as you own the car (you don't have to repay a loan if it is written off). The third party part is mandatory (liability), to cover the damage that you do to someone else. As I understand it, if both parties have both first and third party insurance, then the insurance companies will compare the difference and sort the claims that way, so one transaction rather than 4?
Apologies if that is what you were already saying! Also, I don't know how the laws work in the US! That said, maybe I should double check our own insurance to see if my understanding is correct or not...
You are correct in your assumption that I am from the US. We have a similar system were if you own the vehicle you can drop the portion that covera user caused damage and only keep the liability portion. However I am speaking in a more broad, conceptual sense that insurance should be a choice not compulsory. I am firm believer that individuals should be left to their own devices to make choices that they deem best for them without interference from government and with the full responsibility and consequences of their actions. Rights as citizens are infringed as government takes choice away in the guise of public safety. Regulations dont make us safer in the long run, having the faculties to make informed, educated and safe decisions on our own is the way. Education not regulation is the answer.