One area that has received relatively little attention among liberals is the issue of liberty in determining holidays and leisure time. The classical liberal tradition has long regarded each individual’s right to make decisions regarding the use of their own time as self-evident; however, it has paid less attention to the ways in which governments violate this right through official holidays and restrictions on nighttime business activities.
Ownership is not limited to external objects; rather, it begins with self-ownership. Human beings own their bodies, abilities, and labor. From this perspective, time is not something separate from an individual’s life; it is the irretrievable portion of one’s existence. The deepest form of ownership begins not with land or external possessions, but with ownership over the limited and non-renewable moments of one’s life. A government that manages people’s time enters, in the deepest possible sense, into the domain of individual ownership.
Time is the scarcest resource. Unlike capital, income, or goods, time once consumed can never be recovered. Although governments do not explicitly prohibit individuals from working on holidays, by declaring official holidays—whether in the form of national and religious occasions or through the standardization of weekends—they effectively compel society at large to align working hours with government-defined calendars.
Official holidays and restrictions on business operating hours may appear, at first glance, to be harmless or even welfare-enhancing policies. However, from the perspective of political economy, they represent forms of government intervention in an area that can naturally be coordinated by individuals and markets. Just as prices, wages, and methods of production are best shaped through voluntary interactions among individuals, the allocation of work and leisure time can also emerge from voluntary choices rather than government mandates.
The Historical Roots of Government-Imposed Holidays
Although the first official holiday in history cannot be attributed to a specific point in time, nationwide holidays in their modern form emerged alongside the rise of authoritarian states and their efforts to standardize human societies. In early societies, and even in many premodern communities, periods of rest were largely determined by local traditions, economic needs, climatic conditions, and agreements between employers and workers.
However, modern states gradually transformed the public calendar into an instrument of power. The designation of specific days as official holidays was often accompanied by religious, nationalist, political, or ideological objectives. Through this practice, governments sought to strengthen preferred forms of collective identity, highlight favored occasions, and organize citizens around the state’s official narratives.
This does not mean that every holiday or every form of collective rest is necessarily harmful. Human societies may choose certain days for shared rest based on tradition, culture, or any form of voluntary agreement among individuals. The central issue is not collective rest itself, but the compulsory nature and the state’s monopoly over determining such arrangements.
Compulsory Holidays and the Suppression of Market Order
Contrary to common perception, the market is not merely a mechanism for exchanging goods; it is a system for coordinating the decisions of millions of independent individuals. In a free economy, individuals and businesses can decide when to operate, when to close, and how to organize their working lives. Compulsory holidays, however, disrupt this process. Through a single decision, the state can suspend the activities of millions of businesses without possessing the knowledge of the specific circumstances of each industry, region, or individual.
A factory may prefer to schedule employee holidays at a different time. A multinational corporation may choose a schedule other than closing on Saturdays and Sundays. A small retailer may need to operate on days when consumer demand is higher. A worker may prefer to work on a particular day and, through an agreement with an employer, take time off at another. Yet the government calendar—supported by instruments such as labor regulations, traffic restrictions, and mandatory school schedules—overlooks these differences and imposes a uniform arrangement on diverse circumstances.
This is precisely the problem that liberal thinkers identify in many forms of government intervention: the state lacks access to the dispersed knowledge held by millions of individuals and businesses, yet attempts through a general mandate to achieve outcomes superior to those generated by decentralized market choices.
Coordinated Holidays and the Tourism Crisis
One of the most significant consequences of a centralized holiday system is its negative impact on the tourism industry. When the entire society takes time off on the same designated days, demand for travel and recreational activities rises artificially and suddenly. The result is overcrowded roads, sharp increases in hotel prices, pressure on natural resources, and a decline in the overall quality of the tourism experience.
At the same time, investment in the tourism industry becomes more uncertain. When a large share of a tourism business’s revenue depends on only a few days of the year, the cost of investment increases, and many entrepreneurs are discouraged from entering the sector.
Liberalizing holidays can alter this cycle. If individuals and organizations have greater discretion in determining their periods of rest, travel demand can be distributed throughout the year. Hotels, recreational facilities, and transportation infrastructure can be utilized more efficiently, while prices can adjust due to reduced pressure from sudden spikes in demand.
Nighttime Restrictions: Martial Law Against the Market
The issue is not limited to official holidays. In many countries, economic activity during nighttime hours is also subject to legal restrictions. The forced closure of stores, restaurants, and other services at designated hours represents another form of government intervention in the regulation of economic time. These restrictions are usually justified on grounds such as maintaining order, security, or public welfare, yet they impose hidden costs on various markets.
In a free society, if a business can operate at night, attract customers, and cover its costs, why should the government prevent it from doing so? Some individuals may prefer to work night shifts, some consumers may prefer to shop during late hours, and some industries may inherently require nighttime operations.
Liberalizing nighttime hours can also produce significant economic and environmental benefits. When citizens are not forced to concentrate their activities within limited daytime hours, part of urban traffic can shift to nighttime. This can reduce congestion, lower fuel consumption, decrease air pollution, and improve overall urban productivity.
The Ownership of Time and Economic Growth
Restricting the time during which economic activity can take place is, in essence, a restriction on the freedom of contract between workers, employers, and consumers. Liberalizing holidays can generate significant economic benefits. Greater flexibility in working hours and periods of rest can increase productivity, improve the alignment between supply and demand, and create new opportunities for entrepreneurship.
This approach can also enhance quality of life. True liberty is not limited to the freedom to choose goods or occupations; it also includes the liberty to choose one’s way of life. Individuals should be able to decide how to allocate their time among work, family, leisure, and rest. Just as the free market is based on the principle that individuals understand their own needs better than the state does, they are also better positioned than bureaucrats to make decisions about their own time.
Ultimately, a liberal society respects ownership of external possessions while recognizing self-ownership as the most fundamental principle underlying individual rights; and time is one of the most valuable expressions of that ownership.
