Weight Lost Plans - Lost Mass Confusion with Planned Weight 1.Weight loss confusion about what is best for yourself and your body. http://youtu.be/URd2PqpJZuc follow link to continue reading.

The most successful program is best developed by someone who has been through the experience of continual struggle, this way you feel you can succeed too. Expert fitness instructors and nutritional specialist are excellent, but the problem is that we have to be at a certain level to keep up with them, where's the baby steps? for people like me...and you who have a fair chunk to carry around and never seem to be able to develop drive and motivation.

Programs today are definitely planning to take steps back.....to read more follow this link http://weightlostplans.net/364/planning_for_weight_lost-using_fatburning_furnace

Thank you and good luck with you making plans to lose weight.

http://youtu.be/eS3ltRSmoaw weight lost plans,how to,weight loss,exercise

It looks like underneath their skirts their legs are a furious blur of little baby steps. This would probably be pretty funny looking without the hoop skirts.

Either way, if I was taking hallucinogenic drugs and I saw this live, I would seriously lose my shit.

It's scary how mailable people are. We all are to some degree, but I think you can agree that the vast majority of people have enough critical thinking to be able to see when such blatant manipulative bullshit such as this is being tried on.

I guess it's easy to look at these people who are completely off the deep end and think they have real memories of being at the crucifixion and just write them off as being completely insane. But they have got there by baby steps... cult leaders like this dickhead chip away at the insecurities and pains that people have and push their own thoughts and agendas into them... and give them EXCUSES.


Man, just go to 23:30 and listen to how this guy who doesn't like (at least now) things he has done has been told that it's not HIM that did them, but 'spirits'... what a great way of absolving yourself of responsibility.

He's praying on people with weakness, with sadness, with 'emptiness', with things they feel they need, and he's filling it with 'love' for him... where 'love' equals total devotion and control

I watched some of your video..I may finish it at some point. I have to give it credit, it's quite a sophisticated attack vehicle for atheism. It attempts to decontruct the mechanisms for faith but so far it has some glaring errors. In the video covering prayer in the deconstruction process, it has a fundemental misunderstanding of Gods omniscience and the purpose of prayer. While it is true that God knows our needs before we ask

Matthew 6:8

Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

it isn't true that God has already decided a matter before we ask about it.

Genesis 18:17-25

Then the Lord said, “Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do? Abraham will surely become a great and powerful nation, and all nations on earth will be blessed through him. For I have chosen him, so that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of the Lord by doing what is right and just, so that the Lord will bring about for Abraham what he has promised him.”

Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.”

The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the Lord. Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

The Lord said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?”

“If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”

He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”

He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”

He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”

He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

When the Lord had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Now this is a special case, but Abraham negotiated with God and He decided what to do based on that negotiation. It is the same with prayer. The Lord may be set to do one thing, but may change His mind based on intercessory prayer done by one or several Christians. He may impart a blessing upon someone that normally wouldn't have received it if no one had asked about it.

Prayer is more than just asking for things, it is about communion and growth. Your friend made the mistake of making the Lord completely impersonal, by thinking he was just receiving commands from the master control. Ironically, he thought this was bringing him closer in his personal relationship with God when it was actually driving him apart. This is what happens when people think they know better than God.

1 Thessalonians 5:17

Pray without ceasing.

Luke 6:28

bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.

etc

I feel bad for him, specifically because of this scripture:


Hebrews 6:4-6

For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace.

It is quite shameful what he has done, and I can tell you there is more to this story than he is saying. It's not that I doubt the essential truth of his story, that he was once a devout Christian. That much was obvious to me the first time I heard him speak and looked in his eyes. There is just another spirit at work here which doesnt match the atheistic mindset. It's hard to say what his agenda is but it's not pro-atheist. It's pro-something else, but whatever it is, it's anti-christianity. The pretense of respect he is giving God is just a subterfuge..he doesn't have any respect for God what so ever..it's just to make the medicine go down smoother. The repetitive music is another clue to the disingenuousness of the presentation.

As for me, I don't fit any of his criteria. I was once just like you. Blind to the spirit, a strict materialistic, and suspicious of all religion and all supernatural claims. I rejected most of it as outright nonsense. I grew up that way and saw no reason to change.

One day God tapped me on the shoulder and let me know He was there. Your guess is as good as mine as to why. It's not as if I deserved to know. If I had to guess it would be that I was honestly interested in what the truth was, and I was willing to change my ways if necessary. It was more important for me to know the truth than to be right.

To convince myself God isn't there I would have to give myself a lobotomy. I would have to gouge my eyes out and pour superglue in my ears. I would have to do it deliberately, in spite of Him..meaning, I would have to deliberately deceive myself but I am fairly certain He wouldn't let me forget.

In reference to your scenerio, I think you make a mistake about Gods omniscience as well. God doesn't have absolute foreknowledge in this scenerio. For instance in Gen. 15:13-18 God predicts that the fourth generation of israelites will reach Cannan. But it is actually the fifth generation that reaches it because of disobedience. This means His prediction was based on probability.

For a being to truly have free will, their actions must to a certain extent be unpredictable to God. After God had Abraham prove his loyalty to Him by going through with sacrificing Issaic, God said "Now I know you love me". The verse suggests that until that moment, God didn't know that for sure.

This isn't to suggest God doesn't have foreknowledge at all. He obviously does, since He prophicies about things hundreds or thousands of years away and they come true. It is to suggest that God limited Himself for our sake. We have evidence of this in the person of Jesus Christ. Though He was God, He put aside His power and capability and knowledge to be fully submitted to the Fathers will. He depended on the Father for everything. Not just as an example, but for His mission to be accomplished through His revelation of the Father to the people.

It goes to the ontological argument, of what is the greater being. The one who cannot do anything original because everything he could do has already been done in His mind, or the one who can craft something even He couldn't fully anticipate. I go for option 2. It doesn't make sense for God to get mad at someone for doing something He already knew was going to happen.

My theory is the scenerio itself is certain. It has a beginning, it has an end. What is inbetween He may have certain ideas about, but obviously open to modification. He may plan for every possible scenerio but never quite know which will unfold because He has given us a measure of unpredictability.

So in this scenerio..

God creates a perfect world, giving man a blank slate for good or evil

Man chooses evil, God enforces the rules, death comes into the world and creation falls

Man is corrupted from sin and does continual evil that God is always trimming back and correcting

God works within the evil man creates, but it reaches the point of no return..

God is ready to give up on humans but finds one human he can work with

God resets the world, gives man another chance through Noah

Man is up to his old tricks but God sends His Son into the world this time to redeem Creation

Jesus imputes His righteouness and sinless nature into humanity, restoring them, takes our just punishment onto Himself and dies on the cross for our sins

He rises again breaking the power of death over humanity (which came from sin) and giving everyone the way to eternal life

God sets a date to judge the world, and will send His Son back when the church has spread the gospel to the four corners..

Jesus returns, comes back for His church and destroys the kingdom of the antichrist.

God judges the world and repays each according to their deeds
After the judgement, God destroys the corrupt creation and remakes it entirely new, and this time it will be permanently perfect. Thanks to Christ, the ones who believed in Him will have perfected natures and will sin no more and live forever in paradise

If you want to talk about greed and self-interest that is fine. I am a student of the human nature, and have many logical proofs I can offer even from a secular perspectives. My communication can always use fine tuning, however, I endevour that people should know the truth, because though they may stubbornly reject it at this point, will at some point need it, and more than that, just plain need to hear it. You discount the power of God completely, but I know He is always at work and the truth will facilitate that every time. I also appreciate that you noticed the unfair treatment I am receiving from other sifters. There is no reason to downvote these videos. They are well made and aren't masquarading as anything other than what they are. It's not as if they're in danger of becoming popular. They sin when they do this, and this is written about them:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident [b]within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not [c]honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I do dig Ecclesiastes - easily the most raw, human and cynical chapter of the good book.
http://videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh?loadcomm=1#comment-290039
In short, here is why I think the main, overarching plot of the Bible is silly.
Summary:
God creates flawed humans.
Flawed humans do flawed things.
God punishes all present and future humans because of the flaws in his prototypes.
After many generations, God drowns 99.9% of his land dwelling creatures save two of each. (not sure why the fish get off so easy)
Despite this massive genocide, humans are still flawed.
God impregnates a human virgin woman - in a committed relationship - without consent - who gives birth to a human/God hybrid son. (Kinda weird and rape-y to be honest)
The son is tortured and 'dies for our sins'. (What does that even mean, couldn't God just forgive us without this cruel theatrical charade that so few people of the world are physically able to witness?)
Jesus comes back from the dead (which isn't really that big of a deal, considering he is a part God).
Finally, after all of this violence and suffering, God decides to destroy the world, and take those who believe in him to heaven, and to punish those with skeptical or scientific minds with eternal suffering.
I mean, I guess I can understand mass murder, if God thinks so little of us that our destruction is no more tragic than Atari burying thousands of copies of E.T. in the desert. But if we are insignificant ants, then why the strict moral code that forbids murder? Are we unique and special creatures, or just crash test dummies to be toyed with?
None of the actions of God seem wise for a being of such knowledge and power. The Bible sounds like mythology. It sounds like a combination of campfire stories, moral parables, juicy pulp fiction, dirty jokes, political posturing, medical advice and pre-scientific speculation. It sounds like an anthology of the best of the best literature of early human civilization.
If God were real, why doesn't he just openly and clearly communicate it? Why all the rites and rituals? "Hey, dft, this is God you atheist schmuck.... or should I say ex-athiest schmuck. Put down the pork and put on your beanie!" That would be clear and to the point, and if done convincingly, would add a pretty decent guy to the ranks of his faithful.
Also, his followers are so hung up on pride, that they miss a good chance of making a connection. I told you that I don't believe in Satan, but that I do oppose the greed and ruthless self interest that your Satan seems want to champion. If you cared more about the principles of the bible than the principals in the Bible, wouldn't you be serving your lord better? Shouldn't you nurture the things we have in common and downplay the stuff I think is absurd? Baby steps. Religionists have no strategy or common sense when it comes to apologetics. You argue with me as if I believe in God and Satan.
Anyway, I've made these points so many times, and they just bounce off the framework of faith, just as your points bounce off my framework of reason. There will be no headway because our criteria for belief run so contrary. I think it's cool that you fight for what you believe in so passionately, and wish people wouldn't downvote your videos to the point that they are killed. I do think you could come up with more productive styles of argument.
I'd be curious to get your opinion on this video: http://videosift.com/video/Why-I-am-no-longer-a-Christian-Must-Watch

I do dig Ecclesiastes - easily the most raw, human and cynical chapter of the good book.

http://videosift.com/video/Scorpion-vs-Black-Widow-Intense-sheesh?loadcomm=1#comment-290039

In short, here is why I think the main, overarching plot of the Bible is silly.

Summary:
God creates flawed humans.
Flawed humans do flawed things.
God punishes all present and future humans because of the flaws in his prototypes.
After many generations, God drowns 99.9% of his land dwelling creatures save two of each. (not sure why the fish get off so easy)
Despite this massive genocide, humans are still flawed.
God impregnates a human virgin woman - in a committed relationship - without consent - who gives birth to a human/God hybrid son. (Kinda weird and rape-y to be honest)
The son is tortured and 'dies for our sins'. (What does that even mean, couldn't God just forgive us without this cruel theatrical charade that so few people of the world are physically able to witness?)
Jesus comes back from the dead (which isn't really that big of a deal, considering he is a part God).
Finally, after all of this violence and suffering, God decides to destroy the world, and take those who believe in him to heaven, and to punish those with skeptical or scientific minds with eternal suffering.

I mean, I guess I can understand mass murder, if God thinks so little of us that our destruction is no more tragic than Atari burying thousands of copies of E.T. in the desert. But if we are insignificant ants, then why the strict moral code that forbids murder? Are we unique and special creatures, or just crash test dummies to be toyed with?

None of the actions of God seem wise for a being of such knowledge and power. The Bible sounds like mythology. It sounds like a combination of campfire stories, moral parables, juicy pulp fiction, dirty jokes, political posturing, medical advice and pre-scientific speculation. It sounds like an anthology of the best of the best literature of early human civilization.

If God were real, why doesn't he just openly and clearly communicate it? Why all the rites and rituals? "Hey, dft, this is God you atheist schmuck.... or should I say ex-athiest schmuck. Put down the pork and put on your beanie!" That would be clear and to the point, and if done convincingly, would add a pretty decent guy to the ranks of his faithful.

Also, his followers are so hung up on pride, that they miss a good chance of making a connection. I told you that I don't believe in Satan, but that I do oppose the greed and ruthless self interest that your Satan seems want to champion. If you cared more about the principles of the bible than the principals in the Bible, wouldn't you be serving your lord better? Shouldn't you nurture the things we have in common and downplay the stuff I think is absurd? Baby steps. Religionists have no strategy or common sense when it comes to apologetics. You argue with me as if I believe in God and Satan.

Anyway, I've made these points so many times, and they just bounce off the framework of faith, just as your points bounce off my framework of reason. There will be no headway because our criteria for belief run so contrary. I think it's cool that you fight for what you believe in so passionately, and wish people wouldn't downvote your videos to the point that they are killed. I do think you could come up with more productive styles of argument.

I'd be curious to get your opinion on this video: http://videosift.com/video/Why-I-am-no-longer-a-Christian-Must-Watch

Such a nice sound- the paper shuffle at the end of the clip. they must set that mic up strategically. :]

Dont borrow sugar from the neighbors, we have foodstamps...
Dont help the family business, we mustn't disqualify our unemployment..
Dont do yardwork for the oldlady down the street, she can afford lawnservice w/ her gov checks

Increasing this "social safety net" seems to be a tad counter-productive towards the reconstruction of this lack of community Keith talks of. How can we learn and really understand how to share unconditionally, when we are obligated to share through our money. Without so many checks from the gov., this disconnection between ourselves will be forced to mend together.

how can I learn to connect with the "extras" in my life, when they are just being indirectly fed by me.

Kieth says we don't care about each other. But I believe we are setting ourselves up for it. Why not take some physical step to fixing this instead of throwing money at it. Baby steps. -Ofcourse there our some bigger things the social safety net should catch. But overspending can widdle away the little things which make us who we are as a whole. He's right, we grew up sharing and caring in our childhoods. How can we set ourselves to share and care about eachother in our adulthood?

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^Ti_Moth:
I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.

There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.
But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.
It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.
Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.


It may seem unlikely that some super rich individual would want to form his own state but there are alot of crazies out there, I wouldn't think it too far fetched to think that some super rich evangelical christian would want to impose his philosophy on people via the barrel of a gun (or many guns as the case may be).
So if someone did decide to take over with his mercenary army I would have to fight? I don't know about you but i'm a lover not a fighter I would rather pay a small portion of my wages to fund an opposition, a tax if you will. Also Switzerland was invaded and held by Napoleon for a period of 17 years (1798-1815) and it was after that, that the neutrality of Switzerland became internationally recognized not because many of its inhabitants are armed.
I do believe that libertarianism would be a massive step back after all wasn't the world originally libertarian by some definition, no countries, people working for themselves trading with other individuals and groups of individuals. Wouldn't it be better to have a form of government actually run by the people, a direct democracy with no representatives to become corrupt with true accountability, rather than to tear it down and descend into a Somalian style anarchy.

>> ^Ti_Moth:

I've always wondered, in a libertarian society what is to stop the super rich from creating their own states? Surely it wouldn't be hard, without a government to rein in their powers they could just hire a bunch of mercenaries and live like kings (whilst fighting other kings for land/resources). Libertarianism just seems like a massive step back to me.


There wouldn't be anything to stop the super rich from creating their own states. That is, except for the 350 million of us with guns who would object if they tried to force it onto us. That's the power of individualism. It's also somewhat the same reason why no one has marched into Switzerland and taken over.

But isn't your scenario a very specific, extreme and unlikely one? The arguments against libertarianism tend to always involve some evil Bill Gates with a one-dimensional motivation to do incredibly bad things.

It's interesting you compared them to kings, which is exactly what the US colonies were ruled by (British Empire) prior to the US Revolution. After the revolution, the new republic was a baby step toward individualism and less government, and it's a huge step in the right direction. Not perfect by any stretch, but better.

Imagine what can be accomplished if we continue toward less government and more individual freedom.

Even if RoPaul is right on 90% (hell even 80%) of the issues, people hate real change and REALLY hate fast change. When Cankles Clinton tried to ram through the original socialist health care claptrap in the early 90s she was shut down by an animal reactionary resistance before the logical arguments from both sides arrived.

In 4 years there's no way RoPaul can dismantle the Fed, call all the troops home, legalize drugs, etc.

Even if he had a sensible, painless way to enact his reforms, liberty's many enemies on both sides of the aisle would fight him every step of the way. No sane politician will vote to eliminate Socialist Security and Medicrap "overnight". That's why all 'new' government nonsense should be ferociously fought against...once it's signed into law it's hell to repeal it. Look at the burst appendix that is obamacare.

Even a neutered President RoPaul who got only 10% of what he wanted would be baby steps in the right direction and a welcome change from the obama nightmare. But both sides of the aisle are against him for their own reasons, as well as the leftist lamestream media.

>> ^gorillaman:

That's all I want from you, actually. I don't have a fully formed, coherent alternative to offer. It's the principle I'm endorsing, and the necessity of aiming our thinking toward its realisation. If you remember this discussion started with the proposition of limiting voting to people who could demonstrate they knew what they were voting for. It's simple little baby steps like that we should be considering, and if the only objection is, 'but that's undemocratic,' pfff.


I think you're confusing this conversation for the one dft linked to. This conversation started with you saying democracy was fascism because poor people might vote to redistribute wealth so they're not so poor anymore.

I can expand a bit on why I'm leery of "limiting voting to people who could demonstrate they knew what they were voting for". On the surface, that sounds good to me. However, the question I have is how do we discern who knows what they're voting for? A standardized test? Who writes the test? Who grades the test? How do we decide those people know what they're talking about?

It quickly reverts back to the need for a foolproof methodology for finding people with golden souls to write these hypothetical voting literacy tests. But then if we had a way of identifying superlative leaders, why waste them on writing rules for voting, why not just give them the keys to government directly?

We also have a chicken-and-egg issue. Absent a revolution, the power would have to come from our existing government. That means letting the likes of Harry Reid or John Boehner have ultimate say on who writes the test (or worse, what's specifically in it).

Even if they somehow picked the absolute best possible person for the task, I think the implication of the task is beyond mortal capabilities. They wouldn't just need to write a test that would be fair, they need to write a fair test that would also ensure that the resulting elected officials would appoint a successor who would be willing and able to write a fair test for the next round that produced good elected officials, and so on and so forth for all eternity.

What I imagine would really happen in that loop is that the whole thing would slowly (or maybe even quickly) turn into a tool for one party/ideology/family to consolidate power, and shut off any legal, nonviolent way for the people to get rid of them.

It's why I think that if your goal is to make sure your electorate is comprised of people who know what they're doing in the voting booth, then you should be fighting for policies that make the electorate smarter and more engaged, not smaller.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dan savage, oral sex, jizzy mess, catholic boy' to 'dan savage, oral sex, jizzy mess, catholic boy, baby steps, like veal' - edited by calvados

>> ^dgandhi:
When was the last time a piece of paper did anything? Some system of human involvement is always required, even "strict constructionists" differ on the meaning of any document. Attempting to run a society on ground rules without any interpretive framework is not even wrong, it just doesn't make sense.
Democracy is, of course, not perfect, but it is a functioning manner in which to resolve the conflicts in society while only rarely resorting to violence in the streets. While pure democracy would be terrible, it does not follow, either theoretically, or in practice that constitutional democracies make worse decisions than beneficent tyrants.
I understand that you think that the government being "honest" about who is in charge would be preferable to a shadow oligarchy, but I submit, that "democracy" results in more transparent oligarchy than explicit oligarchy. Pragmatically we are better off having some oversight in a "dishonest" system, than no oversight in an "honest" one.


Where constitutional democracies make better decisions than would pure democracies they do so because they're bound by rules laid down by wise men. Wouldn't you say theocracies have a kind of constitution? It seems to me the only difference is their constitution was written by stupid people. Stupid constitution, bad results. Wise constitution, good results. Is it the constitution or the wisdom doing the good?

You say democracy is not perfect, I say it's immoral and disastrous. Do you think all the freedom we lose and all the damage that's done to our society is a fair price to pay for a conflict resolution mechanism? Shackles are a great peacemaker. The absence of violence is an illusion. So beaten down are we by enforcers of the artificial consensus that we daren't provoke the most obvious displays of their aggression, but the truth is they bring violence to the streets every day.

>> ^NetRunner:
I would agree that if I'm going to entrust someone with authority, I'd rather they be smart (and wise and kind) rather than stupid (or megalomaniacal or cruel).
But I think you have yet to state a coherent alternative you believe would be superior. If I thought it were possible to set up a reliable mechanism where only people of "golden souls" got to hold the reigns of power, I might actually prefer it to conventional forms of democracy. I just don't believe such a mechanism has been discovered, and I doubt that such a mechanism is possible.


That's all I want from you, actually. I don't have a fully formed, coherent alternative to offer. It's the principle I'm endorsing, and the necessity of aiming our thinking toward its realisation. If you remember this discussion started with the proposition of limiting voting to people who could demonstrate they knew what they were voting for. It's simple little baby steps like that we should be considering, and if the only objection is, 'but that's undemocratic,' pfff.

@NetRunner: Baby steps? possibly. But a working voluntary model? Absolutely not. Here's my response which extends to each and every one of you who think this guy's house burning down is a blight on voluntary taxes; quoted here:
>> ^blankfist:

When a victim's family sues their police department for not protecting them, and when the supreme court rules (as it does in EVERY SINGLE CASE) the government has no obligation to protect the people, not a single one of you pious government cultists say shit. You may grumble when the police do something horrible like murder someone or beat up protesters but you chock it up to breaking a few eggs in favor of your big government utopian omelet.
However, let one half-cocked instance of voluntarism creep into the system and it's shouted from the mountaintops when one person falls through the cracks in an isolated case. Bravo! Crusaders of Social Justice!

>> ^blankfist:

Let's peel back the emotional responses and look at this reasonably.

Good advice, I'd recommend you take it, rather than simply deny this has anything to do with your beliefs, and try to pass this off as "government failure".

It's a baby step towards what a private system would look like. The only meaningfully different thing you'd have in a fully private system is that the firemen would've taken the $10,000 ransom payment they were offered to put out the fire.

So, instead of a man sitting out in front of the ruins of his house, he'd be sitting in front of his heavily-damaged home, talking about how the fire department is guilty of extortion for making him pay $10,000 or they'd let his house burn down.

Currently, from watching demos of this system etc. I'm left with a feeling of... meh.

The concept is ok, but they haven't got the pieces all stitched together in a user friendly way as yet.

Baby steps I guess