*As any economist will tell you markets only benefit you to the extent to which you bring something to the table; they don't produce equitable outcomes from inequitable beginnings - au contraire as you won't need an economist to tell you. The freedom on offer is accurately described as freedom in respect of buying and selling things, and not the freedom to act which is (if you think about it) a predicate of the word freedom, used in an unqualified sense. Herein lies the grammatical conceit of the discourse! So, whilst you remain "free" to sell your labour power (i.e. if you're in the 99% apart from us who don't have anything else to sell!) at exactly the same time you are also compelled to rent yourself in order to survive. In other words "choice" means the freedom to choose to starve if you so wish. Choices made under coercion = duress, in turn, grounds, of course, for mitigation in a court of law. So...

*Re: fucking in the streets

Occured to me in shower this morning that it's somewhat odd, and on reflection somewhat revealing, that philosophy is seen as arcane and irrelevant. Doubting things, questioning, inquiring, unconstrained speculating on alternatives etc are essential techniques for knowledge creation - as in the recognition that such "knowledge" is simply a working hypothesis for the time being, to serve some end and not something substantive the conclusions of which should been seen as justifying various crimes (e.g. boiling your "infidel" enemy/letting "inefficient" brownies starve - delete as ideology demands).

So, in a healthy society there wouldn't be philosophers there would just be people engaged in tasks with these facts in mind. Instead we have people operating within a ideological conceit which is possible only to the extent to which the managers (you and i) don't think to raise certain questions. In the meantime philosophy remains an isolated and irrelevant task, for the usual reasons (doesn't fulfill role within the "discourse of legitimation").

*Pleased with Lilya review, I had read it at the time and made note to see (although unless you live in central london or bourgeoise ghetto, e.g. Brighton, Bath, Cambridge) you'll only find endless screens showing the bourne identity or some other shit. Why not forward review to peter "five star" bradshaw? Why not mention that giving films/plays/books stars out of five is fucking stupid and demeaning too!