Continued from below:

Mr Deignan,
There is no defense of tract housing as construction as there is no defense of McDonalds as food.
The market as such is responsible for the decision that the look of a tomato could be considered more important than its taste. However, I take it you would argue that it is the just and moral result of a market in that everyone, and therefore no one is responsible for it. This is simply perverse: passive aggressivity run amok.
As I've said elsewhere, the people who defend a supposidly neutral mechanismdo so because the alternative, taste or judgement, invloves an ambiguity that their logic can not accept.

Elizabeth Anderson writes: "Throughout this series, I am presuming the superiority of capitalism as a mode of organizing economic life." This may be true, but capitalism as economic life overrides any other social arrangement. Economic life is life. And the result of defining value exclusively in economic terms is as perverse as the perfectly round and tasteless tomato.

For the purposes of your idealism the market understands the world in a certain way and dissallows any other understanding as merely subjective or biased. Subjectivity seemingly is banished. But it is not and never will be. The market as parole is much more complex and muddier than your market at langue or idea. And unless you succomb to Scalia's Catholic monarchism or the bookish stupidity of Posner you understand the the legal process, filled as it is with the ambiguities of discourse gives us a model for a philosophical study of experience. We do not live by mechanism but by judgement. If you want to play at autism go ahead, but don't defend your bahavior as that of a rational actor.

I posted the link to DSquared (below) without comment, now I can't resist. People tend to develop romantic attachments to their ideas. The result is more apparent in Iraq but that's all.

"The market as such is responsible for the decision that the look of a tomato could be considered more important than its taste. However, I take it you would argue that it is the just and moral result of a market in that everyone, and therefore no one is responsible for it."

That is the point of market theory isn't it? And it opens up so many areas of attack.
I learned something today.