"For that to happen people have to be free to choose the best search engine"

Uh...they did...80% of them in Canada did. Are you saying people don't know how to choose?

Absolutely disagree. The only monopolies that exist are governments. Governments are the only ones that can hand out true monopolies to companies. Microsoft in the late 90s early 2000's was a classic example of what was mislabeled a monopoly. Many claimed that IE was too dominant and nobody could shake that. Now look at it (and no, it didn't have anything to do with the US antitrust suit against Microsoft. It had everything to do with Firefox being a formidable competitor and Microsoft getting soft).

The most telling line of your statement is "Be thankful that this is happening. It's good for you in the end." Well in that case, why don't you give me all of your money because I know (trust me) that I will better manage your money, and even grow your total assets for you! Oh, and you don't have a choice, because after all, it's going to be good for you.

I'd have to say I don't think it's such a bad thing, nor does it set a new precedent by any means. This type of things happens in languages (human) all of the time. In English, we still use words and phrases such as "he is in the lime light." How many people actually know that that refers to what they used to light stages with back in the early 20th century? Should we replace this phrase because it refers to something most of us have never physically observed? Of course not. Yet, some things in language evolve, morph and turn into something completely new. I don't mind the evolutionary/hybrid approach to language, and I don't mind it for UIs either.

Absolutely well said. Also I might add, 100% health insurance coverage does not mean better (or 100%) healthcare goods and services. Also, one last point to add...the U.S. still has, by far, the best and most innovative healthcare system (and coverage) in the world. I suggest anyone interested to listen to this podcast, look at the links, and do some reading here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2012/07/scott_atlas_on.html

The WHO report ranking the world's healthcare systems has been proven time and again to be a ridiculous, and very unbiased set of conclusions from their "scientific studies."

Oh, you want **TAX DOLLARS** to go to the church schools! Fuck that. If my tax dollars are going to be used educating children then I want them to learn actual facts that will be applicable in the real world. If you want your kids to learn that the gods commanded that non-virgin brides should be stoned to death use your own fucking money.

I never said to give private schools tax dollars. Where did I say that? Please don't put words in my mouth. I merely said some of the major negatives of public education funded by tax dollars. Tragedy of the commons.

That doesn't justify what the EU does. If the EU imposes a law (hypothetical law) that says all companies must hire 100 women to every man hired, that doesn't make it right even when companies around the world start having to do that same practice to do business in the EU. Just because something appears to be moral and then enacted through a law doesn't make it so. There are still plenty of people who disagree on the morality of any given subject, and to force them to do something they don't want to do on all but the most basic of things (the tenets of a society, do not kill, do not steal, etc), that removal of choice is the thing that is, in fact, immoral.

I have to reply to #7. The idea that getting enough people together to get a certain "majority" of a vote to enact something doesn't make it moral or just. It doesn't make it wise, nor does it make it good. It just means, some people want something, and they're too lazy to enact change through their personal spheres of influence (i.e. their daily relationships). No corporations are not people, but they are made up of people, just like governments are. However, here's the key differences. Assuming that a company has no special monopoly from a government, if they mess up, they cease to exist. If a government messes up, they will not cease to exist until a revolution happens. Let's review what a revolution is: it's a way, with people being killed, women and children being raped and pillaged, and other horrible things. So given that juxtaposition, doing things through the private realm versus doing it through government is morally preferable. You may see this as a giant leap, but there's not enough time or space to explain the entire libertarian philosophy of live and let live. Since you quoted Wikipedia, I suggest you spend some more time there learning about this concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Also, the next time you assume that rights can be taken away from groups or individuals just because you prefer something, I'll propose taking away one of your beloved rights and see how you like it. Mind your own business and live your own life without trying to change the lives of others.

The fact that this is even news and not just someone's uninformed personal decision is because of the nature of public education. If this was a private school making this decision, some parents who send their kids there might be upset, but the impact is much more isolated. Parents at such a private school could then choose (yes, choice...what a wonderful thing!) to take their money and their kids and go elsewhere, where they teach the scientific theory of evolution. This is one of many reasons why I am against public education out of principle and support a much more rigorous switch to private education of varying levels (cheap schools all the way to very expensive schools, online education to old-fashioned education).

"Wouldn't this make the long-term profit on more durable items larger?"

No, this is a tax and thus is a net drain on society. Morality can't be legislated, even if recycling is a good thing. This is nannying the general populous in a very large way and will result in more special treatment for special interests. When these companies can no longer compete with the rest of the world, they'll either move out of Europe or seek special favors from the EU politicians to help keep them afloat. This happens again, and again and is nothing new.

Is this really a surprise at all? If these scientists had to raise their own funding via private means, this wouldn't be news at all. This is just wasted time, energy and smart minds rent seeking the government. Move along.

Ok, that's fair that we differ. Then in your opinion, what is it that defines good governance? How does good governance go bad? How is it that a country goes from bad governance to good governance?

So by your "logic," a government should have as many laws as possible, because this is ultimately what makes people and corporations moral. What you're lamenting, in reality, is that people don't behave the way that you desire them to. People (and companies and other organizations) are diverse. The best government is the least government (I didn't say none). Set a very consistent set of basic rules, provide an efficient and fair judicial system, and then live people to live their lives as they see fit. If you disagree with that, then I say how many laws is enough before companies and individuals are all moral and utopia is obtained?

I agree, and another way to pay the bill is to never incur a bill in the first place. Let productive, private citizens make decisions of what to build, not inefficient governments. That's not to say that I'm against the government doing anything. I just believe it's far too large and too out of control at the moment. Given that governments all around the world are in grave debt, this seems to make my case.

This shows a really sad state of affairs for the U.S. government. The fact that these companies feel it is worth their time and money to lobby the U.S. government to get what they need shows:

1. That they no longer believe that they can control their own corporate destiny sufficiently without the government mandating new laws to their liking
2. That it's more efficient for them to lobby the government to get what they want than to risk doing things without the government
3. That the U.S. government has far too much authority and perceived "value" that these companies want a piece of

My solution is simple: reduce the size and scope of the government and these companies will no longer feel like they have anything to gain from lobbying the government.

I'll take your word on that. However, regardless, spending is clearly out of control today given that local municipalities, states and even the federal government are toying with bankruptcy. Big infrastructure is dead for now, lets maintain what we already have while cutting a lot of spending.