Read (not scan) what I actually write before hitting the "reply" button. I did not argue that availability is a problem. I argued that despite availability, choice is constrained by peer pressure, and peer pressure is reinforced and sanctioned by advertising. I do not "claim" as you suggest that people have no choice and similar nonsense, I said that consumer capitalism was quite effective in disguising the choices made by merchandise pushers as "people's choices."
Since this thread is veering into the culutralidentity/pomo territory, which to say the least is not my cup of tea, let me briefly summarize my position on the issue.
1. I did not advocate school uniforms. I argued that school uniforms (or dress codes) represent the local choice of dress code, as opposed to the dress code pushed by the transnational garment industry. While I do not necessarily favor local control over national or international one (c.f. the local push for teaching creationism), I do believe that in this particular case local control of the dress code would be easier on the parents' wallet, and thus give a much needed break to less affluent families.
2. Equating dress codes with totalitarianism or "individual expression is sheer idiocy. Schools do a lot to instill uniformity and deference to authority (e.g. multiple choice testing), but dress code is not part of it. In fact, the liberalization of the dress code seams to be an illusion of freedom created to cover up the stupefying conformity and uniformity created by sanitized curricula and standardized testing.
3. I do not blame consumer capitalism for limiting people's choices. The problem with consumer capitalism, imho, is that it manipulates those choices to legitimate the choices made by authority figures in a quite self-serving and undemocratic fashion. The authority figures took away people's freedom of movement by dismantling public transportation and heavily subsidizing infrastructure that made individual auto ownership more affordable. The entertainment industry inundates the public with 50+ channels of violence, pulp fiction, and mindless entertainment heavily laced with advertisement. The industry inundates the market with fattening food and a snake oil remedy for obesity as well as a myriad of grossly overpriced fetishes advertised to remedy all imaginable social problems. Yet all those decisions are defended as "people's choices." At the same, "people's choices" amount to nothing when they threaten corporate profits, cf. national health care.
4. I am nonplussed why otherwise intelligent people uncritically fall for the commodity fetishism (including intellectual commodity fetishism) created and propagated by the marketing industry.
Wojtek