Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

There is no right to that. Things that make it impossible should be looked on with suspicion, but the right does not exist.

If you were willing to live like 1930 you could have plenty of free time, but 1930 means electric was a luxury most people didn't have.



If there is no right for individuals to have a productive life with plenty of free time per day than a huge number of HN comments on topics such as politics, housing, social welfare systems, healthcare, transportation, etc... are obviated.

Which doesn't seem like an appealing proposition to accept.


There are specific laws indirectly governing work-life balance, such as maximum hours worked consecutively, certain contract stupilations being null and voice because of general law, regulations regarding sick pay, and protections against discrimination, but I don't think there are many countries that explicitly state the right to a productive life with free time.

Rights to housing, welfare, and healthcare are generally handled independently. I'm not sure if there is a "right to transportation". Most rights originate from a basic "right to a happy life" ideal, but are split up and spelt out in particular sub-rights that are easier to enforce in court.

Article 8 of the ECHR and similar human rights conventions seem to come close, but that's mostly used against governments and laws.

I don't think it's a bad idea to introduce such a right, but it needs to be carefully worded or it will cause a lot of trouble.


I think your calculation is wrong.

There are plenty of things you can do in life that are productive and provide you with leisure time that don’t also mean you can destroy the lives of others.

You might as well argue for slave labor. Because that’s certainly one way to be productive and have a lot of leisure time. But it’s wrong. None of this exists in a vacuum. Why should other people suffer so you can have free time?

Find a better way.


Have you gotten confused about the topic?

The court can already do this if the ruling holds which is why we are discussing it in the first place. Your phrasing it as if it's up to individual members of society to decide to impose on each other. If you think this is relevant, can you describe how?


Yes, everyone wants a better life for themselves and they don't want to consider all the trade offs of consequences of that. In particular they often want to force their own ideals on someone else.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: