As I pointed out in one of my speeches, many kinds of "labour" (_e.g._ that of the great painter) exhibit higher mentality than do many kinds of ability.

Further, I pointed out that, in a technical sense, the same effort may be either an effort of labour or ability, according to its application.

Thus, if a singer sings to an audience, his effort is technically "labour," because it ends with the single task; but if he sings so as to produce a gramophone record, his effort is an act of "ability," for he influences the products of other men, by whom the records are multiplied.

The second objection was expressed by one of my critics thus: "I say that all productive effort is labour....

I dare you to tell any one of these genii that they are not labourers." Another critic said: "Just as 'land' in economics means all the forces of nature, so does 'labour' mean all the forces of man.
Why, then, speak of ability ?" These criticisms are purely verbal.