I find this discussion about economics and particularly microeconomics being a theory of choice quite strange. It seems to be a very narrow conversation in which most discussants have no idea that economics can be defined in totally different terms--that is economics is a contested discipline. By ignoring non-choice approaches to economics, most of the discussants are implicitly saying that economists such as Post Keynesians, Sraffians, Institutionalists, Marxists, social economists, feminist economists, and a host of other heterodox economists are not really economists but may be, to use William Coleman's phrase, anti-economists and engaged in anti-economics; and perhaps they should be excluded from the hes listserve and excluded from the profession. If this is indeed the sentiment of the majority of the discussants on the hes listserve, perhaps the moderator should reserve it to only those economists who define economics as only a theory of choice. As a side note, I argue that economics is the theory of the social provisioning process and that the heterodox theory of it is not grounded in mainstream choice theory of any sort. And, moreover, I teach and do research in heterodox microeconomics in which economics as a theory of choice is totally rejected as well all other aspects of mainstream microeconomic theory. While it may be a 'wrong' approach, it is certainly an alternative approach to microeconomics as a theory of choice. Fred Lee