[alchemist1e9]

I see. So this is about “the right” to take a vacation? What are you talking about and what am I? we seem to live in different realities. I can’t even imagine somehow I would have a government “right” to take a vacation. Who is paying for it? I don’t get it.

[bazzargh]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_leave#Leave "Most countries have labour laws that mandate employers give a certain number of paid time-off days per year to workers." (it goes on to point out that the USA - with the exception of Maine and Nevada - is the outlier in western industrial nations in not having this)

The "right" is also in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_rest_and_leisure

Ironically, a lot of this dates back to the Haymarket Riot in Chicago in May 1886 (over the eight-hour-day movement), which led to May Day being a worker's holiday in much of the world...but US politics meant they got an alternative holiday in September.

As RedCondor points out, "who pays for it" has it backwards, companies gain value from the work of their employees, so effectively it is just giving back some of what they "pay" the company in labour.

[brookst]

Do you think you have a right to take breaks at work? To go to the bathroom? To a safe work environment?

People aren’t machines. We have a complicated social contract that says companies may employ labor so long as they meet certain requirements for safety, health, and treatment.

It’s not unreasonable to see time off as part of the deal. Who’s paying for your bathroom breaks? Same answer.

[RedCondor]

All so-called "capital returns" are in reality produced by working people, and therefore people get to democratically decide what they do with them, through whatever decision-making forms they politically choose and consent to organize themselves under.

Insofar as there are disagreements, because capitalist "geniuses" don't think their riches should be subject to democracy, we have a struggle between socialism and capitalism.

[alchemist1e9]

Except history shows us that in 100% of the cases that working people seize the production and allocate the gains they do a unbelievable bad job. Socialism is the single most failed idea in human history, yet we refuse to properly teach that in our education system. I suspect in the future it will be view a bit like refusing to teach other scientific subjects, like evolution.

In reality a mob of people end up producing nothing without capitalists and markets. There is a joke that the IQ of a mob is roughly the highest IQ in the mob divided by the size of the mob.

[andrepd]

>There is a joke that the IQ of a mob is roughly the highest IQ in the mob divided by the size of the mob.

How can you possibly be saying this and "the wisdom of the crowd in markets is all-knowing" in the same thread?? Did you forget to say "and multiplied by the wealth of the mob"? :)

[IX-103]

Do you mean Communism instead of socialism above? Socialism has nothing to do with "seizing the means of production". For socialism it is sufficient to regulate private industries to achieve social good.

And flavors of socialism are very successful so far. Most first-world countries (particularly in Western Europe) have adopted aspects of it and significantly improved individual quality of life compared to those countries who haven't.

Nice strawman.

[alchemist1e9]

Western europe is being left behind and it’s politicians are getting nervous. Claims of higher quality of life are false information.

[jacquesm]

> Socialism is the single most failed idea in human history, yet we refuse to properly teach that in our education system.

Well... let's see until we have the capitalist end game before we draw that conclusion, there is a fair chance that it will make the failures of socialism look like a picnic.

> I suspect in the future it will be view a bit like refusing to teach other scientific subjects, like evolution.

Economic systems aren't science, they are just means of organizing large numbers of people in ways that are hopefully sensible. A system that maximizes for growth can work, for a while, but isn't long term sustainable. So depending on your horizon you may think it is a great idea or a terrible one. Markets aren't bad per-se, but they have the potential to lead to catastrophe and if you don't acknowledge that potential and deal with the risk then the chances of it happening increase.

[alchemist1e9]

Refusing to view economic systems scientifically and quantifying objectively is a seriously big problem. Gotta stop the fairy tales.

[jacquesm]

The problem is that every economic system ever proposes is predicated on a bunch of assumptions that do not necessarily hold true over time. So you end up with a model that may work for a while but that's not how science works. Science extracts facts from observations using the scientific method. Social constructs - and social sciences of which economy is a branch - effectively model people and people are emphatically not as predictable as lab equipment and substances.

So you will always end up with fiction dressed up in a scientific coat. It looks and talks like science but it really isn't. There are no testable hypothesis, there is a ton of politics and there will never be consensus.

[RedCondor]

Cool joke.

I encourage anyone on the fence between this libertarian and I to read the "Concessions" essay I linked up above.