ABSTRACT
We have presented empirical evidence that in the absence of wrongful exploitation, harm, corruption, and so on, the meaning of markets is contingent and socially-constructed. Westerners right now happen to see markets and money as profane, amoral, impersonal, and so on, but Westerners do not have to think that way. If the meaning of markets is contingent, then, we argued, this cannot be a reason to forbid on-net valuable markets. Instead, if certain markets are valuable, we should revise the meaning we attach to these markets. Just as our culture modified the meaning of life insurance markets, so it could and should modify the meaning of, for example, organ markets (provided, of course, these markets work as proponents claim they would). In addition, people who recognize that we have dysfunctional semiotics may conscientiously disregard their culture's semiotics.
