Laissez-faire and a Misunderstanding

It has been said again and again that Hong Kong’s success story owes to laissez-faire. Many laissez-faire supporters think that the value of money is objective, but most other things are valuable only for those who consider them important. In the same vein, environmental protection, heritage conservation, and art promotion are considered by many to be valuable only for those who love them, although these things, they think, may be valuable for everyone in terms of the money they may produce.

Having laissez-faire internalized throughout their lives, many successful businessmen in Hong Kong understand social development in the following way: “Talk less about historical value and conservation value as we always disagree about them; let’s think about economic growth since everyone needs it!” Here, “we” and “everyone” are being used, and these words (and the like) are frequently used in defence of laissez-faire. This shows that many defendants of laissez-faire believe their view to be sound as it is justifiable to every person (would they love Scanlon’s contractualism as soon as they read it?). We should then clear up a common misunderstanding, which is also a common self-misunderstanding — many laissez-faire supporters, actually, do not brush aside morality; at least, they cannot afford to do so in front of journalists. (First draft: January 9)