It's interesting because the same fundamental problem is true of health care in the U.S.

It's essentially, "they need a doctor. And they need to stop spending time searching, and get on with not dying"

The market dynamics and model are entirely different with these sorts of emergency industries. It's almost always "first available" and not "best cost". Even with shopping around (when the luxury is available) the decision is perceived quality first, cost second (or lower).

The lawyer I use for business is entirely different than the one I might use to defend against a murder charge is entirely different from defending against a traffic ticket is entirely different to sue on a trademark case is entirely different from suing somebody for slashing my tires, etc.

In other news, shopping for food while hungry is more expensive.

For lawyers it might be a lawsuit. Do you go with the cheapest lawyer? Most people go with who they think is most likely to win the case (or net the most money from the suit).

Unless you're also going to argue that the large number of expensive cars in LA "indicates that cost is not a major factor" for cars. (The same can be said for handbags.)

Never confuse what rich folk will pay for luxuries with real world prices.

A free market isn't defined by whatever arbitrary criteria you make up.

You can't claim it's not a free market because it's a hassle to switch lawyers, or because it's expensive to do so, or because searching for lawyers takes time.

I said: the consumer cannot just walk away. If I am buying a stereo, my choice is between a) do I need a stereo or not, and b) where do I buy it. The purchaser of law services usually does not have the option of walking away from the deal entirely. His/her choice is limited to: which of these expensive lawyers do I go with?

"A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in relative prices rather than through regulation. If a commodity is in short supply relative to the number of people who want to buy it, its price will rise, producers and sellers will make higher profits and production will tend to rise to meet the excess demand. If the available supply of a commodity is in a glut situation, the price will tend to fall, thereby attracting additional buyers and discouraging producers and sellers from entering the market. In a free market, buyers and sellers come together voluntarily to decide on what products to produce and sell and buy, and how resources such as labour and capital should be used."

Given this definition, it is hard to see how there could ever exist a free market in professional legal services and surely only a fool (or possibly a lawyer), would seek to argue that there is one in existence already given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

(The OECD saying it's a definition don't make it so.)

A proper definition is: A market wherein all exchanges are voluntary, i.e., no force is involved.

But yeah, it's far from a free market. I'm with you there. That doesn't mean we can sunder the term "free market" and say it's not a free market for a bunch of made-up reasons, which is what I was countering.

(The OECD saying it's a definition don't make it so.)"

Is that definitive? As the description of the definition of the noun 'definition' from http://thesaurus.com/browse/definition defines definition as a description, of this I am definite. ;)

A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are.

And

The rules of correct definition are derived from the process of concept-formation. The units of a concept were differentiated—by means of a distinguishing characteristic(s)—from other existents possessing a commensurable characteristic, a Conceptual Common Denominator. A definition follows the same principle: it specifies the distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units, and indicates the category of existents from which they were differentiated.

The distinguishing characteristic(s) of the units becomes the differentia of the concept’s definition; the existents possessing a Conceptual Common Denominator become the genus.

Thus a definition complies with the two essential functions of consciousness: differentiation and integration. The differentia isolates the units of a concept from all other existents; the genus indicates their connection to a wider group of existents.

For instance, in the definition of table (“An item of furniture, consisting of a flat, level surface and supports, intended to support other, smaller objects”), the specified shape is the differentia, which distinguishes tables from the other entities belonging to the same genus: furniture. In the definition of man (“A rational animal”), “rational” is the differentia, “animal” is the genus.

Both are from http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html

Definition, however, is a descriptive, not proscriptive term. Succinctly, the definition of a term is whatever a broad consensus "agree" upon. Dictionaries serve to help identify that consensus, although they are not completely authoritative. The definition of a word may not coincide with its essence in any way -- for example, the phrase "to beg the question" has two primary definitions. The first and newer definition is equivalent to "to ask the question." The second and older definition is to assume the conclusion within the question itself. Together these definitions do not elucidate the "essence" (or "distinguishing characteristic", in Ayn Rand's primitive terminology) because they are wholly unrelated to each other. Instead, they're simply descriptions of the common modes in which English-speaking society uses the phrase "beg the question."

The best example is your definition of the word definition. The word "definition" does not have any intrinsic meaning -- only that which we place on it. Moreover, the meaning can vary between subsets of the broader population -- your use of the word definition in no way coincides with my use of the term in formal mathematics. This doesn't mean that you can't disagree with a given definition for a word, only that you're insistence that you're correct or even that your definition has some objectively superior qualification makes your use of the word the "correct" one.

As quoted from Oscar Wilde, so this post might be recursive ;)

Because I'm human, it could be the case I haven't thought things through carefully, but it's not simply not the case.

And I don't think I was being arbitrary. When challenged on your point you merely pointed to the quotes you had made and told people to read the book, which to me is pure dogma.

So admittedly I got a bit snarky. Although I was also attempting to be a bit self critical, which was why I referenced that quotation.

"All that is ours was once flushed down your toilets. Over there is our aquarium. This is our library.

Nothing but crumpled porno and Ayn Rand."

So how am I being dishonest?

Also, how have I misunderstood the idea being presented here;

"For instance, in the definition of table (“An item of furniture, consisting of a flat, level surface and supports, intended to support other, smaller objects”), the specified shape is the differentia, which distinguishes tables from the other entities belonging to the same genus: furniture."

Now admittedly, the book may expound upon this and create a completely different interpretation based on the overall context, but given that you presented me with this excerpt and claimed it as a reasonable argument, you will forgive me for dealing with only the words that were in front of me at the time.

I didn't claim it as a reasonable argument. I don't think it's very useful out of context. Just wanted to illustrate genus and differentia.

So how am I being dishonest?

You're being dishonest because you're just indulging your emotional whims by "judging" things on completely irrational criteria, instead of actually examining the ideas.

That was my judgement when you used her lexicon as the ultimate arbiter of the definition of 'definition' and then just told people to read it when challenged on this position.

Adam Smith believed that an economy should be free of monopoly rents

If I can keep you from switching lawyers, if I can keep you from interviewing other lawyers, if I know your choice is not "lawyer or no lawyer", but "which lawyer", then I can keep my prices artificially (not a free market) high.

[edit] Not that I think that the global market for food to be a free market.

You're conflating two different concepts. You're talking about transaction costs (not being able to walk away once you've hired a lawyer). Markets with high transaction costs can still be free, in the sense you can choose whatever lawyer you want and supply and demand aren't artificially restricted.[1] Markets with high transaction costs are, on the other hand, not efficient.

[1] Supply in the legal field is regulated, but I'd argue it's supply in corporate law is not artificially restricted to any substantial degree.