A good example of someone who's questioning only goes as far as his assumptions will allow.

Yesterday, Tapped linked to this [Stop the Wedding!
Why Gay Marriage Isn't Radical Enough] referring to the argument as coming from the 'far left.' What does that phrase mean in this context? Anti-bourgeois anarcho-narcissism comes from the right more than anywhere. The theory that one's life can or should be fashioned as a work of art is closer to fascism than to socialism.
Chew on that one for a while.

And I was waiting for someone to make this argument. Marx is rolling over in is grave, laughing. Following the teenager's enthusiasm for simplistic definitions of terrorism (see above), I suppose the point is that the ideas and politics of various peoples and groups are quantifiable. Never mind the question of whether the idea is grotesque, doesn't it make more sense to try to understand why people choose to act in certain ways than it does merely to try to predict when those actions occur? The idea behind this sort of market mechanism may or may not be immoral but as designed it is amoral. Using the logic of the market in the moral chaos of war -in effect using a capitalist definition of war- defends and perpetuates both the mechanization of human interaction and war itself, bacause it is based on the assumption that the war cannot be stopped.