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