3 ms·

Here's a nice definition from the OECD website's glossary of statistical terms; "A free market economy is one where scarcities are resolved through changes in

by ktizo 15y ago

Here's a nice definition from the OECD website's glossary of statistical terms; "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.

javert 15y ago
That's a description of a free market, but not a definition. (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.
- ktizo 15y ago
  "That's a description of a free market, but not a definition. (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 http://thesaurus.com/browse/definition defines definition as a description, of this I am definite. ;)
  - javert 15y ago
    Saying a definition is a description is a total dumbing down. I don't know why they don't teach this stuff in grade school anymore... they should. 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 http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html
    - Locke1689 15y ago
      No. I see that they also don't teach the history of continental philosophy in grade school. The term that you are conflating with the word "definition" is most closely related to the philosophical term "essence." Essence is the property which give things their identity -- an object without its essence loses its concrete identity. When Socrates attempts to find the essence of virtue, he does not seek to describe the things which we believe are virtuous (because complete correctness could simply be found here by enumeration), but to find the subject whose identity we are describing using the term "virtue." 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.

by ktizo 15y ago

javert 15y ago

That's a description of a free market, but not a definition. (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.

ktizo 15y ago
"That's a description of a free market, but not a definition. (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 http://thesaurus.com/browse/definition defines definition as a description, of this I am definite. ;)
- javert 15y ago
  Saying a definition is a description is a total dumbing down. I don't know why they don't teach this stuff in grade school anymore... they should. 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 http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/definitions.html
  - Locke1689 15y ago
    No. I see that they also don't teach the history of continental philosophy in grade school. The term that you are conflating with the word "definition" is most closely related to the philosophical term "essence." Essence is the property which give things their identity -- an object without its essence loses its concrete identity. When Socrates attempts to find the essence of virtue, he does not seek to describe the things which we believe are virtuous (because complete correctness could simply be found here by enumeration), but to find the subject whose identity we are describing using the term "virtue." 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.