I have lived in the US and I would never lump Americans together as imperialists. Actually, I wouldn't dream of lumping them together as *anything*. Not a clever thing to do with Americans.

OTOH, the US as a country - meaning the elected government - has imperialist policies and attitude, and has had them for a while now. It is up to US citizens to decide whether they care. In recent decades, the response has been underwhelming.

That is true of natural rights. But we live in societies where we have elected to grant ourselves many rights that are human constructs. The right to elect our leaders, for one, requires others to do things for us. Maybe you consider that you have a right to basic personal safety, which requires people to maintain a form of law and order.

Or maybe you are the sole inhabitant of a nation-island, in which case I take my comment back.

I respectfully disagree with this. The developed world today is more than wealthy enough to provide a broad range of quality healthcare to all its residents, for free. Not all the healthcare people want, but all the basic care they need. Of course, that is a socialist policy, which you are free to disagree with. It is at least partially implemented in many countries today, whose budget deficits are no worse than that of the US. Interestingly, in those countries, unsubsidized private healthcare can be considerably more affordable than in the US.

My point is that rationing healthcare in wealthy countries today is a choice, not a necessity.

Lutheran-Raised Anonymous Coward is right: the Catholic Church was the one who took liberties with the Bible to come up with their own doctrine. The Protestants fought to free themselves of the accumulated Catholic dogma and go back to the biblical roots of Christianity.

In a way, you could credit Protestants for emphasizing personal judgment, and Catholics for de-emphasizing the Bible.

That is certainly true for the desktop market - at least, some segments of it. How well do you think it works for laptops? Compare the price and choices in the OS-free laptop market with the "normal" (i.e. Windows) laptop market. Sure, you can get a Mac too. That makes it a duopoly of sorts.

All right, I concede that there was more rhetoric in that post than substantial argument. Let me explain.

What I mean is, these phrases implicitly belittle the political aspect of every economic issue. We can only vote with our feet if the markets function well, and that only happens with proper regulation (including, but not limited to, antitrust regulation). That, in turn, depends on us voting for the people who will enact such regulation. You know, politicians working for the common good. They are, at the very least, a major theoretical concept.

If the system is skewed (say, by entrenched quasi-monopolies or duopolies, or cartels like the MAFIAA), you can't fight it from inside. You need to change the rules of the game. In principle, democracy means that the people make the rules. Let's be idealistic for a second... isn't it refreshing?

So let me rephrase my previous post in plain language: to say "just take your business elsewhere" is naive and oversimplifying. The public's interests can only be served by a combination of educated consumption (voting with our feet), consumer advocacy, and political awareness as well as activism.

"Vote with your feet", "vote with your wallet"...

I'm sick of hearing that crap. How do you vote with your feet if there is barely any choice in the so-called "marketplace"? And if you vote with your wallet, will that count against the votes of others whose wallets are rather thicker than yours?

All these "vote with" phrases make a mockery of democracy. Here is my suggestion: vote with your vote. I know, it's pretty damn bold.

Syria is a third world autocracy like (unfortunately) many others. So yes, Israel is generally held to much higher standards than Syria. I hope most people in Israel regard it as a good thing.

Even if everyone is appalled at what's happening in Syria, there is not much they can do about it. The Iraq-style approach doesn't have much appeal anymore.

The homeless guy at the corner of my street also has a theory about rotating universes.

All right, sorry about that. This is really at the intersection of maths and physics, though, but I get your point.

Which goes to say that Goedel was neither a physicist nor a biologist.

This has to be the most overhyped, buzzword-ridden science story I've read in months. As a researcher, I hate to see whatever credibility we have spent on things like this.

Thank you for finally mentioning the numbers! They take a sample of 16 people, split it in two groups of eight, and publish statistical differences between the samples... It's appalling.

May we have a citation for this please?

That's true! By the way, I've just found the original manuscript of King Lear in my attic. Now the (only authoritative version of) the play is MINE! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

I think the proper term is terrorish. At least that's what my grandpa says, and he's over 90.