219 works selected for the 40 candidate questions. Selections approved by Ben Breen, 29 September 2026. Arguments are unverified. Quotations were chosen by machine and are unchecked.
3 of 219 works
1845BastiatBastiat,Economic SophismsFrenchEssayFull text
- Q17Does introducing labor-saving machinery improve workers' lives?
Yes. Labour is a means, not an end; any machine that saves an hour of work is progress, and suppressing machinery to create jobs is a sophism.
- Q19Who should receive the benefits when machinery increases the amount a worker can produce?
Consumers, through cheapness. Society's interest is the consumer's interest in abundance; labour saved by machines is freed for other wants, so the gain spreads through lower prices.
- Q17Does introducing labor-saving machinery improve workers' lives?
1883LafargueLafargue,The Right to Be LazyFrenchEssayFull text
- Q14Would machines becoming more capable than humans necessarily place humans in a subordinate position?
No. Quotes Aristotle's self-weaving shuttles and calls the machine the redeemer of humanity that could free workers into leisure, if not for capitalist overwork.
- Q19Who should receive the benefits when machinery increases the amount a worker can produce?
The workers, as leisure. As machines improve, workers work harder instead of resting; machine productivity should be taken as leisure by limiting work to three hours a day.
- Q14Would machines becoming more capable than humans necessarily place humans in a subordinate position?
1950CésaireCésaire,Discourse on ColonialismFrenchEssayIn copyright
Aimé Césaire
Discours sur le colonialisme
French · Essay
In copyright · No English translation
Open source →- Q34Does superiority in industrial or military technology justify one people governing another?
No. Colonizers' claims of roads, railways and material progress do not justify colonial rule; the Congo-Ocean railway cost lives, and no one knows what these countries would have built without Europe.
- Q34Does superiority in industrial or military technology justify one people governing another?