The line that expressed the author's opinion most clearly to me was this: > Public discourse doesn’t exist in a free market. I read the article as an indictme

The line that expressed the author's opinion most clearly to me was this: > Public discourse doesn’t exist in a free market. I read the article as an indictment of capitalist forces, which pressure people into conformity as a path towards, ironically, (economic) freedom. The author is fighting and is in conflict. I wonder, though, if there is another way, so that freedom doesn't have to come through either blind conformity or "me against the world" conflict. There are a lot of things in our world and our culture which I don't like, yet isn't recognizing my powerless to change the world to my liking an equally valid path to freedom?