Asia

New Hong Kong Minimum Wage Law Makes Everyone Unhappy

|

bamboo scaffolding just doesn't seem like a great idea to me. But what do I know?

I've occasionally heard it said that any law where all parties are dissatisfied in a good law. But I'm skeptical. Consider Hong Kong's new minimum wage provision. BBC News reports that:

The agreed level—likely to raise the earnings of 11% of the working population—is unlikely to satisfy employers or workers.

The territory has never had a minimum wage before, but the BBC's basic reporting on the new rule (which is quite similar to the progression of the AFP wire story on the same subject) is a study in the contradictions of minimum wage laws in general.

The story suggests that the need for the law arose due to Hong Kong's "big wealth gap," which has "become wider in recent years due to a series of financial crises."

But at the very end of the piece, readers learn that the law will do nothing to address the most obvious gap between rich and poor in Hong Kong: It will not apply to "the tens of thousands of migrant workers from the Philippines and Indonesia who work here as domestic helpers."

Ironically, that exception means the Hong Kong minimum wage law is better for the poor in that territory than typical minimum wage rules like those in the U.S., precisely because it leaves workers willing to labor for very, very low pay—for their own reasons, good or bad—alone to negotiate their wages as they see fit. And that means would-be employers will likely dig deeper into this pocket of cheap labor rather than messing around with people to whom the minimum wage rules apply, minimizing the impact on the economy. But it would suck to be a Hong Kong-born, non-union construction worker once this law goes into effect, wouldn't it?

More on the dangers of the minimum wage here and here.

NEXT: OK, How About "Jobs Saved But Uncreated"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. But it would suck to be a Hong Kong-born, non-union construction worker once this law goes into effect, wouldn’t it?

    That would imply that cheap immigrant labor takes jobs away from existing citizens.

    Which as any loyal Reason reader knows, is a racist, xenophobic attitude that indicates stunted mental and social development, which can be dismissed by quoting a line from a South Park episode.

    1. I’ll have you know, sir, that I never quote South Park. Well, I may have said “Respect my author-i-tay” once.

    2. Hey, xenophobic racist, what is the inherent problem of jobs going to immigrants? Why do “existing citizens” have a greater right to a job, especially at a higher wage? I’m not quite seeing that.

      1. And more importantly, what about non-existing citizens?

        1. THEY TOOK UR EXISTENCES

      2. I think it is quite normal to value the welfare of one’s fellow citizens over that of non-citizens…Nations are more than just “lines on a map.”

        1. Slavery and feudalism were normal once, too. Just because something is normal doesn’t mean it isn’t bigotry.

          1. There comes a point where we have to tell people in other countries they have to tend their own gardens rather than moving into ours. The US doesn’t have the massive industrial growth and empty space that it did back in the early 20th century.

            There is no reason why Mexico should be the shithole country that it is today; except for the fact that unsatisfied people have the option of leaving en masse (and the corrupt Mexican govt is happy to see them go).

            If you don’t believe borders should have consequences, you’re either an anarchist or a world government supporter. Take your pick.

            1. There is no reason why Mexico should be the shithole country that it is today;

              There’s at least one good reason – we pushed our moronic fucking drug laws on them.

        2. Re: MNG,

          I think it is quite normal to value the welfare of one’s fellow citizens over that of non-citizens…Nations are more than just “lines on a map.”

          Chauvinism being, suddenly, an understated virtue…

          So much for “we’re all brothers.”

    3. That would imply that cheap immigrant labor takes jobs away from existing citizens.

      It would also imply that cheap immigrant labor provides existing citizens with goods and services at lower cost.

      The latter effect outweighs the former. That’s kind of this whole “how economies work” thing.

      1. Dude, he was joking.

        1. No he’s not.

      2. I agree with MikeP.

    4. Or try these on for size…

      That would imply that cheap immigrant labor takes jobs away from existing citizens.

      That would imply that cheap outsourced labor takes jobs away from existing citizens.

      That would imply that cheap mechanized production takes jobs away from existing citizens.

      Would you tolerate those? What then do you have against immigrants?

      1. I never said I opposed immigration. Just that Reason et al have often dismissed that argument as fallacious when it’s obviously not.

        1. False. It’s dismissed because it’s a microscopic view of a macroscopic issue.

        2. It’s not?

          Exactly how economically backward does an argument have to be before it’s fallacious?

          1. The fallacious argument is that lower priced labor does not displace higher priced labor for the same discipline.

            Not that anyone has actually made that argument. But that’s what Tulpa is claiming has been done in these parts in the past.

            1. Fair enough. Your characterization is better.

              Not fallacious. Just unimportant.

            2. heller makes that very argument, admittedly 36 minutes after your comment, but it is ubiquitous in these parts. I suspect the Reason staff has a keyboard shortcut for “jobs Americans won’t do”.

              1. Uh, no Tulpa, I have never said that lower priced labor doesn’t displace higher priced labor.

                Reading comprehension. It’s important.

    5. Tulpa, the two are not analogous because any American could work for the same cash that an immigrant laborer recieves. They just don’t want to. Hong Kongers, on the other hand, can’t work for less than minimum wage (i.e. for the same amount their immigrant workers work for), even if they want to.

      And yes, I just made up the term “Hong Konger.”

      1. No man is an island. One’s bargaining power is effected by the positions that others take. Self-interested Americans are therefore quite rational to try to limit the amount of people into the country who would put a downward pressure on their bargaining power.

        1. And self-interested South Africans were quite rational to try to limit the number of people in the country who would put a downward pressure on their bargaining power, too.

          That doesn’t make it right.

          1. I’m sure you act against your self-interest all the time when it’s “right.”

            1. So now you’re an apologist for Apartheid?

              Yet below you bemoan the effect that getting rid of minimum wage would have on blacks.

              You realize, of course, that the minimum wage was introduced into South Africa long before formal Apartheid — precisely to make employing blacks more expensive and to make discriminatory favoritism toward whites less expensive.

              1. I guess I don’t see minmum wage or immigration laws as some fundamental aspect of apartheid. Maybe its because of all the nations that have the former without the latter?

                1. They are all examples of discriminating against one class in favor of another class that has more political power because it is the latter class’s self-interest.

                  I see no moral distinction between apartheid and immigration restrictions. Apparently you don’t either.

            2. Address the rebuttal or GTFO, sockniffer.

        2. Re: MNG,

          No man is an island.

          Yes, he is. The definition of “SELF” means “I’m in here and you’re NOT – so there!”

          One’s bargaining power is [a]ffected by the positions that others take.

          Quite a revelation – scarcity! Who woulda thunk it?

        3. “Self-interested Americans are therefore quite rational to try to limit the amount of people into the country who would put a downward pressure on their bargaining power.”

          Rational? Sure.

          Justified? No.

          I’m sorry, are you trying to add something to this discussion MNG?

      2. Tulpa, the two are not analogous because any American could work for the same cash that an immigrant laborer recieves.

        You are aware that there are minimum wage laws in the US, no? They don’t apply to immigrants in practice, if not de jure as in the case of the HK law.

        1. Tulpa, once again you have failed to see the point.

          Here, I’ll spell it out for you:

          In the US, if minimum wage laws were repealed, people would still complain about cheap immigrant labor taking their jobs, because they don’t want to work for such low prices. The minimum wage laws are a blind to the real reason Americans don’t like immigration. If the Hong Kong situation was analogous, then Americans would price labor competitively in the absence of a minimum wage. Since in reality they would not, the two situations are not analogous.

  2. “But it would suck to be a Hong Kong-born, non-union construction worker once this law goes into effect, wouldn’t it.”

    Same way it sucks to be a black teenager in America after the recent round of minimum wage increases. Shot unemployment through the roof among these poor lads and lasses. Of course, who cares about the real effect on the poor and minorities if you can make it look like you are trying to protect them.

    1. Ah, the poor black teenager, perpetually cited victim of the mean old minimum wage laws!

      Seeing how libertarians oppose a slew of things that would lessen disadvantages faced by the poor black teenagers in America, color me unimpressed by this oft-repeated tripe.

      Besides, even if it had the theoretical effect claimed you would have to weigh the benefits gained by blacks who earn a higher wage because of the minimum wage (and they make up a higher rate of such jobs). Blacks know this, which is why they tend to support minimum wage laws despite the exhortations of libertarians trying to convince them of what’s “really” in their interest…

      1. MNG, I hereby apologize for ever claiming that you were the legendary liberal who understands economics; you are just as big a hack as Chony. My apologies.

        “Besides, even if it had the theoretical effect claimed you would have to weigh the benefits gained by blacks who earn a higher wage because of the minimum wage (and they make up a higher rate of such jobs). Blacks know this, which is why they tend to support minimum wage laws despite the exhortations of libertarians trying to convince them of what’s “really” in their interest…”

        I never really understood the weird utilitarian arguments the Left makes when backed into a corner; it’s like the Spock quote, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” (paraphrased, probably incorrectly), becomes your final defense when confronted with something that completely decimates a leftist economic theory. Such is the case with minimum wage laws.

        But before I move on, I’d like to pop the utilitarian bubble real quick. According to utilitarianism, this scenario would be morally acceptable: A doctor has five patients, each of which is suffering from a failure of an organ. A healthy patient walks in, the doctor kills the patient, and uses his organs to perform transplants on the five terminally ill patients. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”, even at the expense of the most basic property right (ownership of one’s self), and human dignity.

        On to minimum wage. Would some African-Americans benefit from higher minimum wage laws? Sure; if they aren’t fired, they now have a smaller pool of potential workers to compete with. Minimum wage essentially puts a “floor” at how low you can undercut someone for a job; by it’s very nature, it is damaging to competition.

        But by your standards, it doesn’t matter. There’s some weird objective measurement, known only to leftists, by which someone can calculate how a policy impacts The Greater Good (TM). I guess according to this imaginary system, minimum wage laws are a help, not a hindrance to laborers.

        1. For any good libertarian utilitarianism should be the first, not last line of defence!

          That’s an old hypo regarding utilitarianism. The more I think about it the less objectionable I think I find it (of course none of us want to be the organ donor, but to the doctor, who is the choice maker here, why should he prefer saving one life to five?). I’ve yet to see any competing moral theory not arrive at similar counter-intuitive results.

          It’s kind of funny to see you criticize me for ignorance of economics and embracing utilitarianism at the same time. You do know maximizing positive consequences is something that is quite commonly referenced in economics, right?

          “Minimum wage essentially puts a “floor” at how low you can undercut someone for a job; by it’s very nature, it is damaging to competition.”

          Indeed, and in a system where the poor have less bargaining power that’s a good thing. No one likes a race to the bottom…

          1. whoops, that should be “any good liberal.” Of course since it is a correct moral theory libertarians would do well to adopt utilitarianism as well!

          2. Before I go on, how badly did getting shot by a SWAT sniper hurt?

            “That’s an old hypo regarding utilitarianism. The more I think about it the less objectionable I think I find it (of course none of us want to be the organ donor, but to the doctor, who is the choice maker here, why should he prefer saving one life to five?). I’ve yet to see any competing moral theory not arrive at similar counter-intuitive results.”

            I think that fact that you believe that someone doesn’t even own their own body is enough evidence to label you as a monster. But that’s just me; if people don’t own their bodies, then what do they own?

            “It’s kind of funny to see you criticize me for ignorance of economics and embracing utilitarianism at the same time. You do know maximizing positive consequences is something that is quite commonly referenced in economics, right?”

            In a libertarian society, the above scenario about the doctor and his five patients would be abhorrent and punishable by law, unless the healthy patient contractually agreed to it. Libertarians believe that ultimate sovereignty lies with the individual, which is a complete contrast to the utilitarian collectivist notion of some “Greater Good” that is impossible to gage let alone implement. Not to mention that civil liberties are the foundation of libertarianism, while a utilitarian society would be willing to cast them aside the moment they got in the way of the aforementioned “Greater Good”. The fact that you cannot see the difference can be attributed to you being an idiot, so I can go into further detail if you still don’t understand.

            The positive outcomes of liberty in a capitalist society do not come about from some ruler declaring “X is good for society, Y is not”; it arises from individuals promoting their own self-interests through voluntary trade, free from government interference. Again, in a utilitarian society, anything that doesn’t enhance the “Greater Good” is to be cast aside; property rights and individual liberty are afterthoughts to the utilitarian.

            “Indeed, and in a system where the poor have less bargaining power that’s a good thing. No one likes a race to the bottom…”

            Except that employers also compete for labor, which in a growing economy with a high demand for labor actually increases wages.

            *Note: There was some sort of error when I was trying to reply to MNG, so this was posted separately. Sorry.

          3. That’s an old hypo regarding utilitarianism. The more I think about it the less objectionable I think I find it (of course none of us want to be the organ donor, but to the doctor, who is the choice maker here, why should he prefer saving one life to five?).

            Go kill yourself and donate your organs, then.

            I’ve yet to see any competing moral theory not arrive at similar counter-intuitive results.

            Bullshit. Ethical egoism comes to the opposite results. You’re just too faithful to coarse, completely reflexive utilitarianism, so anything showing that your faith is ridiculous is not “competing”.

            Something is seriously wrong with you.

            1. Go kill yourself and donate your organs, then.

              Don’t be ridiculous. Like all good progressives, he considers himself exempt from the consequences of his ideology.

          4. “The more I think about it the less objectionable I think I find it (of course none of us want to be the organ donor, but to the doctor, who is the choice maker here, why should he prefer saving one life to five?).”

            This is revoltingly revealing. Apparently, MNG believes that simply not killing someone is equivalent to saving that person’s life.

            This is one of the biggest flaws in utilitarianism.

            Not killing someone = saving them

            Not saving someone = killing them

            Which means that every day we save all the lives in the world, and every day we kill all those who die.

            To MNG and every other utilitarian, the doctor allowing five dying patients to die no better nor worse than stabbing to death five innocent people who happen to walk by.

            Sickening isn’t it?

            1. This is what happens when you turn morality into a numbers game. The biggest net gain or the smallest net loss is the moral choice! Too bad the context of actual actions, such as the obvious difference between refraining from murder and murder are lost in the insanity of it all.

              According to MNG’s philosophy, it is immoral of him to do anything less than sacrifice himself for the net benefit of society. He is only one, there are many who would die without his blood and tissue. I’m sure MNG believes with all his heart that the blood of all those who died for want of his organs is on his hands. If not, he is a hypocrite and should renounce utilitarianism.

              Morality is about actions, not results. If you can’t understand that, you are hopelessly lost.

            2. As a libertarian utilitarian, I’m amused by these weak anti-utilitarian arguments.

              For instance, Heller, the correct phrasing would be:

              Preventing someone who otherwise would have died from dying = saving them

              Not saving someone who you otherwise could have saved = killing them

              That’s the logic of the doctor example, and it’s perfectly reasonable.

              Let me put it this way… would you rather live in a society with a higher death rate, or one with a lower death rate? If lower, then you should support a policy where one patient (chosen at random) is killed to save the lives of five equally sick other people.

              Not saying government or rogue doctors should get involved, but maybe a private org could sign people up for something like that voluntarily (after all, you’d be 5 times more likely to be saved if you’re involved than killed by it.)

      2. Re: MNG,

        Seeing how libertarians oppose a slew of things that would lessen disadvantages faced by the poor black teenagers in America

        Ahh, how quaint – you’re already poisoning the well.

        Besides, even if it had the theoretical effect claimed you would have to weigh the benefits gained by blacks who earn a higher wage because of the minimum wage

        Sure we could . . . IF they were being employed.

        Blacks know this, which is why they tend to support minimum wage laws[.]

        Many people know things that ain’t so – such Ad Popullum arguments are quite unimpressive.

  3. From the linked article:

    Employers do not like the idea of a minimum wage here – they say it could have a negative impact on the economy.

    But the territory’s unions argue that it is good for stability.

    “Stability” is the code word for “Protecting my turf from upstarting competitors”

    Union legislator Lee Cheuk-yan says the Hong Kong government has recognised that the lower paid workers are struggling to feed their families and are angry.

    He knows all the millions of them personally.

    Hong Kong has a big wealth gap, one that has become wider in recent years due to a series of financial crises.

    An unsubstantiated assertion by the reporter. Who cares abou the gap? The important thing is if the overall standard of living is rising, not if some people are making more money.

    Many low-paid workers have to work long hours.

    Because in Hong Kong, hours have more than 60 minutes.

    1. “Who cares abou the gap?”

      People care for the same reason many people care about political inequality between people. Money is power (too).

      1. Re: MNG,

        People care for the same reason many people care about political inequality between people.

        I had missed your non-sequiturs, MNG. Money is power, indeed – if Walmart, for instance, stops giving me good value for my money, I don’t give them any of my money. That’s MY power.

        Money only becomes political power through the will of the politicians, meaning your thinking is strikingly circular.

      2. Money is only power IF you use it to buy power, you dolt.

        And buying power IS political inequality.

  4. I guess people in Hong Kong haven’t seen Free to Choose.

  5. At least Hong Kong had the decency to wait until Cowperthwaite had died.

  6. Must be a pretty big minimum wage, relative to wages in that territory, to affect 11% of the population.

    Be interesting to see what the unemployment rate does soon afterward.

  7. “It will not apply to “the tens of thousands of migrant workers from the Philippines and Indonesia who work here as domestic helpers.”

    If minimum wage hits my business, I can pass that to my customers. If minimum wage hits my house, I have to eat it.

    1. Re: Dello,

      If minimum wage hits my business, I can pass that to my customers.

      And, subsequently, lose a few of them.

      If minimum wage hits my house, I have to eat it.

      Or go without domestic help – your spouse will surely appreciate that.

    2. You can always ask for a raise. If minimum wage goes up, then everybody else is entitled to a raise, as well.

      Isn’t that how it works?

  8. Guess their Government is like ours. They could care less what the “Sheeple” think.

    Lou
    http://www.be-anonymous.at.tc

  9. Anytime another economic zone fucks up, it’s good for America.

    1. Yurop, this guy is joking.

      I hope.

  10. Ironically, that exception makes the Hong Kong minimum wage law is better for the poor in that territory that typical minimum wage rules like those in the U.S.

    Can someone parse this clause for me?

    1. She means people whose labor is worth less than minimum wage in Hong Kong can still be employed. They can’t in the US.

  11. We should get rid of the Minimum Wage in America and let the Free Market take care of things.

    This way, businesses can pay people less and hire more people. And, we’ll have more people working.

    1. Re: Alice Bowie,

      This way, businesses can pay people less and hire more people. And, we’ll have more people working.

      While we’re attacking the free market, let’s also have a minimum price for tomatoes so those greedy homemakers don’t make the tomato growers go hungry – God forbid the homemakers are allowed to buy more tomatoes.

      You’re a sentimental fool, Alice – which is a nice way of waying you’re an idiot.

      1. I didn’t attack the free market.

        It pretty much speaks for itself.

  12. “Ironically, that exception makes the Hong Kong minimum wage law is better for the poor in that territory that typical minimum wage rules like those in the U.S., precisely because it leaves workers willing to labor for very, very low pay”

    Don’t drink on the job.

    1. Other words of advice:

      Learn how to write a coherent sentence.

      Hire a real editor. You know, those guys that real magazines and newspapers have.

  13. Minimum wage? You couldn’t pay me enough to climb that bamboo scaffolding, and I’ve done some pretty hairy shit in my 30 years in construction. They tie that shit together with cloth. Damn, I thought wooden swing stages with cornice hooks were rough.

    1. heh, good one…

      1. Why haven’t you sacrificed yourself to society yet?

        There are at least two people in the world who are dying without your vital organs, why are you killing them?

  14. Unfortunately the domestic helpers DO have their own minimum wage, and have had one for a while now: http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/faq_fdh.htm#4

  15. It’s so interesting to see the utilitarian-hate here, as many of the most public “libertarian” intellectuals (like from the law and economics movement and various economists) make utilitarian arguments all the time.

    But to a lot of people libertarianism appeals because it provides a moral justification to be self centered and protect one’s “stuff.” And for these I can see how utilitarianism is a threat. Utilitarianism is really just a combination of two very simple ideas: that consequences of an action, measured in people’s welfare, are what make it right and wrong and everyone’s welfare counts equally.

    The latter leads to results that may be psychologically uncomfortable, but are hard to refute rationally. You see, we all want to see ourselves as special, but any moral theory stated in general terms cannot take your “special-ness” into consideration (because any other person can say the same about themselves). Your preference for yourself in the moral calculus involves something akin to the racists preference for their race, it’s undefensible in a generally stated theory.

    Don’t take my word for it, you guys that came across the utlitarian scare hypo in Phil 101 should have also read Rachel’s famous essay demolishing ethical egoism.

    http://people.umass.edu/cox/egoism.pdf

    1. I don’t normally post, but you are so fucking stupid, I had to respond.

      You’re confusing basic economic theory with ethical decision making.

      I don’t know if you’re doing it on purpose or not, but please stop. You’re giving me a headache.

    2. Don’t be his porn.

    3. Morality is bullshit, and MNG is a utilitarian twat.

    4. “moral theory stated in general terms cannot take your “special-ness” into consideration”

      I don’t need it to. I have a weapons.

    5. Is this a concession? You didn’t address a single point I or anyone else who replied to you brought up. Instead, you went with the typical liberal response; pretend that your opponent never replied to you to begin with, make a bunch of strawmans, and then leave. Bravo.

      Many libertarians are moral nihilists, or believe that morality is subjective. Apparently, you think that a moral theory can be “proven”. So I guess in the world of the Left, not only are regulations and higher taxes beneficial, morals are objective, too.

      And I will ask you one more time; how do you measure general welfare? I can assure you that no such objective measurement exists. But then again, by utilitarian standards, Hitler’s Holocaust can be justified. What is the death of a few million Jews and other lesser races to Utopia for the rest of mankind? Or even Stalin; a Worker’s Paradise is surely worth the sacrifice of a few political dissenters and thought criminals here and there.

      You sicken me, and I apologize to everyone else for feeding the troll.

    6. It’s so interesting to see the utilitarian-hate here, as many of the most public “libertarian” intellectuals (like from the law and economics movement and various economists) make utilitarian arguments all the time.

      There’s a difference between appealing to utilitarians and being one, you know. Not exactly a complex difference to figure out.

      I reject any utilitarian who thinks they are libertarian. The two are completely incompatible. Why should any utilitarian respect liberty? Liberty does not necessarily yield the greatest benefit for the greatest number.

      But to a lot of people libertarianism appeals because it provides a moral justification to be self centered and protect one’s “stuff.” And for these I can see how utilitarianism is a threat.

      Or, and stay with me on this one, there are people who are libertarians because they believe that liberty for all is equivalent to justice. And they reject utilitarianism because it has no respect for liberty or justice.

      Utilitarianism is really just a combination of two very simple ideas: that consequences of an action, measured in people’s welfare, are what make it right and wrong and everyone’s welfare counts equally.

      Which makes living by utilitarianism impossible. If the right or wrong is dependent on the consequences of an action, then one can never know whether they are acting rightly or wrongly until after the fact. Are we supposed to guess? Why not steal, rape, enslave, and murder? Who knows, something good might come out of it for everyone you didn’t harm…

      The latter leads to results that may be psychologically uncomfortable, but are hard to refute rationally.

      Actually, utilitarianism is one of the easiest moral philosophies to refute rationally. First of all, there is no such thing as an objective measurement of welfare. Is welfare happiness or health? Is it both? What happens when happiness conflicts with health?

      Above I argued against utilitarianism completely on the basis of logical deduction. I found that utilitarianism clearly contradicts itself. Instead of replying to this, you wrote a broad distraction piece. You fail.

      If you believe that stealing from, raping, enslaving, or murdering innocent people is wrong, you can’t be a utilitarian.

      You see, we all want to see ourselves as special, but any moral theory stated in general terms cannot take your “special-ness” into consideration (because any other person can say the same about themselves). Your preference for yourself in the moral calculus involves something akin to the racists preference for their race, it’s undefensible in a generally stated theory.

      This is just too ironic for words. I have never seen a utilitarian sacrifice himself for the good of society. The only thing I hear from utilitarians is why OTHER people should sacrifice themselves. It is the ultimate egocentric, power-centric, morality. Until you sacrifice yourself, I don’t see how you can claim that you do not consider yourself special.

      Libertarians on the other hand, truly believe in equal moral justice for all. You will never see a libertarian calling for the rejection of the fundamental rights of another in order to benefit himself. Liberty is the ultimate equalizer, not utilitarianism. Utilitarianism will always favor the majority over the minority. The minority is always the loser, the slave, to utilitarians. How is that equality?

      Don’t take my word for it, you guys that came across the utlitarian scare hypo in Phil 101 should have also read Rachel’s famous essay demolishing ethical egoism.

      http://people.umass.edu/cox/egoism.pdf

      Rachels is defending moral absolutism and the concept of equal rights. Two things that libertarians hold central to their philosophy. On the other hand, she demolishes morality from consequences. There is little difference between an individual deciding morality based solely on consequences towards himself, and the majority group deciding morality based on consequences towards itself. Utilitarianism is the latter.

      Libertarianism is against ethical egoism, since it holds that an individual must respect the equal rights of all other individuals, even when doing so is harmful to the individual.

      So, once again:

      YOU FAIL

      And you always will until you put your money where your mouth is and become a slave for the benefit of others. Then, again, you’ll still fail.

  16. Migrant labor and local labor aren’t fungible in Hong Kong. The law allows migrant maids, but very strictly limits what tasks they can perform to purely domestic duties. Even driving thier employer to the store is illegal, lest they displace local chauffuers. And immigration laws are strictly policed to prevent illegals.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.