Preview content only
Content available from The Journal of Value Inquiry
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
If You Can Reply for Money, You Can Reply for Free
•Peter M. Jaworski
Published online: 1 November 2017
ÓSpringer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017
We are honored that Markets without Limits is the subject of a symposium.
to Jasmine Carter, Jeffrey Moriary, Michael Munger, Jeppe von Platz, and Mark
Wells for their thoughtful commentary and critiques. Here we’ll brieﬂy respond to
1 Our General Strategy
The thesis of Markets without Limits is that if it’s permissible to do something for
free, then it’s permissible to do it for money. We have some more precise ways of
stating the thesis, but that’s the slogan form.
We make some qualiﬁcations to clarify this thesis. We acknowledge that there
are what we call incidental limits. For instance, if we promise to give away a guitar
for free, then we can no longer sell that guitar for money without breaking the
promise. But this doesn’t show that guitars are not the kinds of things that can be
bought and sold.
Our argument in Markets without Limits is largely negative. By default, we
presume that mutually beneﬁcial, voluntary trades should be permissible unless we
can ﬁnd a good reason to conclude otherwise. We note that there are a range of
objections to markets in different goods and services. We respond by making three
Georgetown University, Washington D.C, USA
Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski, Markets without Limits (New York: Routledge Press, 2015); see also
Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski, ‘‘Markets without Symbolic Limits,’’ Ethics 125 (2015): 1055–1073.
J Value Inquiry (2017) 51:655–661