Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

On Thanksgiving, Be Grateful for Property Rights

There’s no reason to celebrate collective ownership.

When we celebrate Thanksgiving this week, I will give thanks for property rights.

Property rights allow each individual or family to do what we want with our small piece of the world without having to answer to the whole community.

On Thanksgiving, we'll probably be told to think of America as one big family—and for some people, government is the head of that family. That idea warms the hearts of America's new "democratic socialists."

But thinking like that nearly destroyed this nation before it began.

The Pilgrims at Plymouth didn't share a feast with Indians after arriving in 1620 because America was so filled with bounty.

Instead, the Pilgrims nearly starved to death. They'd tried to farm collectively—the entire community owning all the land and sharing everything, like socialists. Gov. William Bradford wrote, "By the spring, our food stores were used up and people grew weak and thin. Some swelled with hunger."

Then, writes Bradford, "After much debate (I) assigned each family a parcel of land... (T)his had very good success, because it made every hand industrious."

Crop production increased because workers reaped direct benefits of their own effort. They stopped hoping someone else would do the hard work.

It's not that the Pilgrims were lazy or weak. They'd risked their lives to cross an ocean to try to build a community from scratch. But in tiny, often imperceptible ways, we each do a less efficient job, and pay less attention to the task at hand, if we think the whole community is responsible for that task.

The Pilgrims were the same people after their switch from collective to individual farming—from socialism to capitalism, as it were—but after the switch, they thrived. That led to the first Thanksgiving in 1623.

The bounty for which we give thanks this week was made possible by that early course correction to private property.

I worry that, 400 years later, we've turned into ingrates. Instead of celebrating individual producers, Americans give thanks to a gigantic government for handouts.

It's not just the poor who get a helping hand. Middle- and even upper-class Americans have been taught to expect government to guarantee health insurance programs, dispense our retirement income, run our schools, and provide security.

We do things as a single, unanimous unit that could be done better by private individuals and the voluntary groups we form. Why?

I think the idea of everyone pulling together under the warm umbrella of wise political leaders, as if all 330 million Americans sat around the same dinner table, makes people feel cozy and safe.

But it's a dangerous illusion.

It's hard enough to get a real family to agree on things for the holidays. Children fight. Tastes differ. Not everyone wants to hear the same music.

On a small scale like that, we know each other well enough to forgive slights such as an uncle knocking over the gravy boat or the kids playing loud music.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    Doing anything collectively, especially if you do it involuntarily, is a bad, inefficient idea.

    There in a nutshell is what is wrong with coercive monopolistic government.

    If government were voluntary, they wouldn't need cops to enforce victimless "crime".

    But "collective" alone is not the problem. The "especially involuntary" part of the quote is wrong. Voluntary collectivism is fine, as long as it is voluntary and people can opt out. It is involuntary collectivism which is wrong.

    If government were a voluntary collective, people who disagreed with votes could opt out.

  • sarcasmic||

    Exactly. If people want to go form a commune where they grow organic vegetables, listen to shitty music, and stink like patchouli, that's entirely their right. So long as they don't force anyone to join against their will.

  • Zeb||

    Or form a corporation, which is a much more common way in which people act collectively, albeit in a more limited way.

  • sarcasmic||

    Kinda funny how libertarians are so often accused of believing every man is an island and that no one should work together. Then again those making the accusations find corporations to be abhorrent, because they involve voluntary cooperation. Collective action should be all or nothing. Force everyone to conform or it isn't worth the bother.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Collective action should be all or nothing. Force everyone to conform or it isn't worth the bother.

    Well, what's the fun in allowing people to form voluntary associations? Where's the opportunity to wield power, use force and coercion, and partake in graft, corruption, and theft on an unimaginable scale? /sarc

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    Individualism allows voluntary collectives enforced by voluntary contracts.

    Forced collectivism cannot allow individualism.

    That alone ought to inform people about which system is better.

  • PCGUY||

    Amen

  • Nardz||

    Good article.
    Nice to see a libertarian perspective from this site from time to time

  • sarcasmic||

    Nice to see a libertarian perspective from this site something not critical of Dear Leader from time to time

    ftfy

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Nice to see a libertarian perspective from this site something not critical of Dear Leader from time to time

    FTFY

  • vek||

    You're such a tool. Half the articles here anymore are barely even left-libertarian, they're almost outright prog derp it's all about teh feelz... So yes, it is nice to see something that's just centrist-libertarian or to the right of that... And not even riddled with TDS to boot!

  • loki||

    When property rights extend to one's own person, that will truly be something to celebrate.

  • creech||

    "Property rights allow each individual or family to do what we want with our small piece of the world without having to answer to the whole community."

    Almost everyone has that attitude about their own property 'cause we're smart and sophisticated , but other folks are fools, evil, or incompetent to do so with their property so let's vote to regulate, control and confiscate their property.

  • Shirley Knott||

    As Heinlein noted in Moon is a Harsh Mistress, nobody ever stands up to demand a law so they can't smoke, or take drugs, or jaywalk. It's always, always, to stop other people.

  • I'm Not Sure||

    I have run across many people who think taxes should be raised (even theirs) because the government needs more money to do more stuff. When pointed out to them that the government accepts donations and asked why they don't send some of their money in, the response is always that they'd be happy to pay more if everybody else did, too, but that they're not willing to pay if others don't.

  • Tionico||

    and just WHO on this planet has that meme down to a polished and well-oiled machine? None other than our Congress, all three chambers.... (dig at the new hausfrau from NYC). They almost never pass a law that does not include either a carveout/exemption for them, or a separate programme entirely. They do not believe in the old "sauce for the goose sauce for the gander" idea. NosirreeBob. Amd for the times they have given themselves the protectioin racket, and one of their own dearly beloved commits some malum prohibidum (or even some mala in se) that would land any of we mundanes in the hoosegow for a long time, their pals (media, coppers, Dept of "Just Us") somehow always "overlook" the offense...... how convenient.
    Orwell had a lot right, and that half a century before much of what he foresaw wuld come to pass.

  • JFree||

    They'd tried to farm collectively—the entire community owning all the land and sharing everything, like socialists

    Sorry Stossel. This story is a myth. The land was owned by the Plymouth Company of New England - by 40 investors (then called adventurers) in England who'd received the charter from the king. The Pilgrims themselves were essentially indentured servants on a work-to-own plan. They would work for seven years to pay the costs of chartering their passage and at the end of seven years everyone who survived would receive 20 acres.

    The conflict in the first three years was between the religious settlers (roughly half of the Mayflower passengers) and the economic settlers (1/2 Mayflower and most of the next 3 supply ships). 'Growing food' was not considered productive work by the company. Fur trapping, lumber, and drying fish were. The conflict was between the 'productive work' of trapping - and the non-productive but necessary work of growing food.

    The 1-acre per person allocation in 1623 was in violation of what the absentee corporate landowner wanted. Made the settlers 'squatters' or trespassers and in violation of their contract. And yeah it did work. So they survived and in 1627 got the full 20 acres.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    Your refutation of the alleged myth is weak sauce. You yourself admit they went from collective property to individual property. There are plenty of documents reporting Bradford's journal entries. Your selective facts do nothing to rebut what your claim is a myth,

    Try again.

  • JFree||

    You yourself admit they went from collective property to individual property.

    Yeah. But there's a big fucking difference between an actual absentee corporate landowner trying to impose feudalism v some utopian-based collectivism based in the 19th century.

    There are plenty of documents reporting Bradford's journal entries.

    Yeah. And they are all either contemporaneous letters from Bradford to Thomas Weston (the financial intermediary between the Pilgrims and the Plymouth company) - or memoirs written later where no one cares to find out who Thomas Weston is.

    Here's the fucking land charter from King to those named 40 The important name to remember among those 40 is Ferdinando Gorges (who became roughly the CEO of the company) and his son Robert Gorges (who was sent by the company - along with Weston - to their 'new' colony at Wessagusset with his own fucked up ideas about how the entire territory would be governed). That colony failed in spring 1623 - but again unless you know what Wessagusset was, then you can't comprehend what Bradford is saying when he writes about Wessagusset-Plymouth relations - failure of which is the direct event that impelled the 1-acre allocation.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yeah. But there's a big fucking difference between an actual absentee corporate landowner trying to impose feudalism v some utopian-based collectivism based in the 19th century.

    So what?

    The moral of the story was that collectivism didn't work while individual ownership did.

    Remove the details on whether collectivism was voluntary or imposed, and the point still stands.

  • JFree||

    The moral of the story was that collectivism didn't work while individual ownership did. Remove the details on whether collectivism was voluntary or imposed, and the point still stands.

    The moral of the story is that Marxism/socialism doesn't work and that property rights - esp in land - should be viewed as absolute. There is absolutely no moral intended/conveyed about corporate (voluntary collective) ownership of land and/or the issues related to absenteeism and privatized feudalism - though that is what happened (and is still somewhat relevant today). You can't understand Jefferson's later 'yeoman farmer' ideal - or the conflict between 'free soil' and the 'slave planterocracy' unless you understand what actually happened with that first rebellion against European ideas about feudalism/land. Nor can you even really understand Locke or 19th century anarchist (which is supposedly the origins of libertarian) ideas about land. Or hell - monetary systems that are based on banking which in turn are based on land-based debt. Those are all based in feudalism/classical reactions to that - not 'capitalism'.

    Early 17th century people did not live their lives for the purpose of enabling their moronic distant descendants to have a ignorant pissing post-industrial contest about MARX for fuck's sake.

  • sarcasmic||

    The moral of the story was that incentives work. When you expect everyone else to pick up your slack, you slack off. When you reap what you sow and nothing more, you sow like a motherfucker.

    You're trying to take something simple and obvious, and turn it into something it is not.

  • JFree||

    You're trying to take something simple and obvious, and turn it into something it is not.

    But if 'simple and obvious' has nothing to do with reality - and BTW the first Thanksgiving was NOT 1623, it was 1621 (the first harvest) - then what is the point other than spreading a myth? A myth that is actually dangerous since the 1623 Thanksgiving (whites-only, no food just praying/fasting, and not around harvest) immediately followed a rather shitty massacre of Indians in Wessagusset which poisoned relations with those tribes for decades. The 1621 thanksgiving (not called that) was the Kumbaya harvest festival of 'myth' (which happens to be true too).

    Your kids (if they are remotely precocious/rebellious and can google on their own) already know that story - so is Thanksgiving about Europeans killing Indians after stealing their food - or praying/fasting all day in thanks of rain - or the sanctity of private property (ex food/land claimed by Indians) - or harvest? Simple obvious and wrong is a great way to undermine the narrative you want to sell.

    Yes incentives work. And those can be squashed/distorted from inside a corporation or from govt (which is also btw a corporation). Is that really that difficult a message? Everyone knows that if they're honest. And it can make for a very interesting conversation which even kids can appreciate.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    You're talking to someone who peddles Georgist nonsense predicated on collective ownership of land.

    That's why he's trying to complicate it.

  • sarcasmic||

    The goal of communication is to reduce and to simplify. That is now people come to a common understanding. When solving a large problem, the best strategy is to reduce it into smaller, manageable problems, and then solve them. When you're done the big problem is solved.

    You are doing the opposite. You are expanding and complicating. You are trying to take a small issue and turn it into a bigger issue. You're adding, not taking away.

    People do that so they can avoid the point. The point was that collective farming didn't work, while individual farming did. Period. The end.

    Your continuing to expand and say I can't make a judgment without knowing history blah blah blah is called obfuscation.

  • Remember to keep it all polit||

    Thanks you for having more patience with idiots than I can manage. I may learn some day.

  • Sevo||

    "Thanks you for having more patience with idiots than I can manage."

    JFree deserves no patience. He's a lefty and lies often to 'support' his lefty claims.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Well, you can't make a judgment about history without knowing history. JFree is giving you the history right. He knows his history, which makes him a rare bird on this blog.

    What point do you suppose is served by saying, in effect, "This history stuff is too complicated, and doesn't support my point. I'll make up something simpler, and more to the point, and call it history." It's that last bit especially that is hardest to figure out. What is gained by reading the present into the past, and calling it history? Why do that? Please explain.

  • Tionico||

    I'd suggest you find and read the book "Of Plymouth Plantation" written by Bradford himself. He was there... and writes a contemporary history based on his own and others' journals, and his memory. His account is VERY different than your tale. And you weren't there..... my guess. HE was.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Let's also remember that the Pilgrims weren't the ones who created the first English settlement in America.

    Jamestown Virginia was the first English settlement.

  • CE||

    But not the first permanent European settlement. That would be St. Augustine, Florida, founded in 1565. I always wondered why I never learned that in school.

  • vek||

    Because they were dirty Spaniards instead of virtuous Englishmen!

    I grew up in California the first half of my life, and it always tripped me out how much earlier stuff was going on there versus even in the midwest, let alone the inland western states or northwest. The Spanish were already building full on massive European cities in south America before the English had done shit.

  • Sevo||

    "The Spanish were already building full on massive European cities in south America before the English had done shit."
    I may have missed that in my reading; got any cites?

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Google, Lima. Founded 1535. There's plenty more. Mexico City was founded under Spanish control in the 1520s.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Yes the Spanish created a settlement before the English.

    This reminds me of a program I saw some years ago about who may have first traveled to the Americas (excluding the so-called native Americans who got here during the last ice age).

    The possibilities presented ranged from the Chinese and Polynesians (landing on west coast of North or South America) to the Vikings and Irish monks and some others I can't remember at the moment.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Yeah Gilbert Martin, Jamestown. That was more like capitalist enterprise than Plymouth was. And Jamestown was a death trap, and stayed that way for decades.

    Don't get me wrong. The history of neither colony examples anything useful in a discussion of capitalism or collectivism as we understand those terms today. It's a mistake to try to read back into the past any present values, insights, cultural norms, economic premises, or pretty much anything modern at all. If you study history that far back—looking for the roots of modern customs, modern ideas, modern politics, or modern what have you—the only way you will find anything that seems to apply is if you smuggle it in from the present yourself, and then pretend (perhaps to yourself) that you discovered it in the historical record. That's what Stossel has done with the OP.

    Read the record of antique times with a mind tuned by study to the customs and insights of the people who lived then, and you will find no trace of the present in anything they thought, said, or did. That should not surprise anyone. How much of what happens 400 years hence will be in consequence of anything thought, said, or done today? And what far-larger proportion of all that distant future will follow in consequence of occurrences during the interval between now and then—occurrences about which we know absolutely nothing?

    So it was with our own past. They knew nothing of us, and did nothing that related to us.

  • JFree||

    I have read it and the other original sources and his work is one of the main original sources. But readers are lazy and ignore much of it (esp the letters). eg: a letter from Mr Pickering to Bradford that is included in Of Plimouth Plantation:

    ...The company hath bought out Mr Weston...Mr Weston will not permit letters to be sent in his ships nor any thing for your good or ours...By credible testimony we are informed his purpose is to come to your colonie, pretending he comes for and from the adventurers and will seek to get what you have in readyness into his ships as if they came from the company...

    If the reader is too fucking lazy to find out more about who/what 'the company' or 'Mr Weston' or 'his ships' or 'Mr Pickering' or 'the adventurers' is, then the reader misses the whole point of the letter and the context of everything that Bradford writes in that particular timeframe (early/mid 1622 in this case) - including subsequent letters from Weston. Because Bradford himself doesn't explain that stuff cuz he didn't see the need to by the time he wrote the book.

  • Jerryskids||

    But in tiny, often imperceptible ways, we each do a less efficient job, and pay less attention to the task at hand, if we think the whole community is responsible for that task.

    I would suggest the problem isn't so much that we think somebody else is going to do it if we don't do it, it's that we know it doesn't matter how much we produce when armed thugs are just going to confiscate it and distribute it to everybody else who didn't work as hard as we did. With the armed thugs being first in line to get "their fair share" of what we produced. Human beings are naturally greedy that way, willing to work harder for their own benefit than for the benefit of others. Free market capitalism ensures that the best way to serve your own interests is to serve the interests of others. Socialism assumes you can remake human nature if you just apply enough force to the problem.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Amen, well put!

  • vek||

    It's probably a combo of both really. I know for sure I wouldn't work half as hard as I do in an outright communist system.

  • Stephen Lathrop||

    Jerryskids, if you think your summary has much to do with the way New England Puritans thought or behaved in the early 17th century, you ought to read A Model of Christian Charity, a sermon by John Winthrop. It will introduce you to some contrary possibilities. As a bonus, you will discover it to be the source of one of the commoner quotations in modern politics, and also among the worst misconstrued. You'll recognize it when you see it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Happy Thanksgiving Stossel and thanks for the videos advocating freedom and Libertarian principles.

  • SQRLSY One||

    Happy Thanksgiving, all of ye Reasonoids!!!!

    On the DOWN side, there is only ONE nation on the whole freakin' planet where we need the permission of a Government-Almighty-sanctioned Doctor of Doctorology before we can legally blow on a cheap plastic flute!!! And yes, that ONE nation is the USA! So don't get too complacent!

    As part of my Good Thanksgiving Wishes to y'all, I will repeat my pubic service of trying to keep y'all from running turkey... Afoul, that is... Of the Tender Mercies of Government Almighty...

    To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

  • Olderthandirt-stillkickin||

    I am grateful for property rights. It would be even better if the government respected them more.

  • tinwhistler||

    Unfortunately, we have no property rights, because we gave them up with the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. The income tax gave the government the right to sieze as much of your income, private property, as they want, the same as any other armed robber. If you do not pay the income tax they direct you to pay, they will seize the rest of your private property and toss you in prison. If they do not get your property with the income tax, they can take it with the nonpayment of property tax.

    You do not own your property, you only rent it from the government, as long as they offer you the opportunity.

  • mtrueman||

    "The Pilgrims were the same people after their switch from collective to individual farming—from socialism to capitalism, as it were—but after the switch, they thrived. That led to the first Thanksgiving in 1623."

    Not sure what point you are attempting to make. The Indians saved the Pilgrims by giving them some of their collectively produced foods. How is this a vindication of capitalism?

  • Sevo||

    "Not sure what point you are attempting to make."

    Understanding the point required competence in reading, comprehension of what was read, and an ability to process that information logically.
    Given you have none of the three, that is no surprise.

  • vek||

    You sure are dense...

    Also, while Indians didn't have fancy deeds for land, most if not all farming tribes DID effectively have private property... Families had their plots of land, and mostly kept what they grew for themselves. Learned that in an article debunking myths about Indians some years back.

  • mtrueman||

    "Families had their plots of land,"

    What is a family if not a collective?

  • JFree||

    So the Indians taught capitalism to the Pilgrims because the Pilgrims had been taught Marxism in church?

  • Uncle Jay||

    All property should belong to The State, and yes, that includes humans.
    Who do you look toward when it comes to making a car, an illiterate auto worker who makes junk that will break down in a few years, or a wise and clever bureaucrat who will take the time and initiative to ensure that car of yours won't get off the assembly line in the first place so all you untermenschen can experience the joys of public transportation?
    All humans should be property of The State also.
    Just look at all the slaves who were so happy and productive on the southern plantations until that fascist Lincoln liberated them.
    The State has people who have had their eyes opened to the prudent diktats of socialism, and they know how to treat people with the respect and courtesy of any slave working on Uncle Sam's plantation. Vicious dogs and whips usually do the trick, but if not, the masters of the government plantation can always withhold food from the doubters and dissenters. That worked well in Mao's China, Stalin's Soviet Union and contemporary Venezuela.
    If it worked for them, it will work for us.
    You just have to have hope and change.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    On Thanksgiving, Be Grateful for Property Rights

    Amen to that.

    Without property rights, we would have no moral claim to even our own bodies. Property rights precede all other rights.

  • librarian||

    Putting aside collective rights does not absolve us of collective responsibility. The spirit of the Native American people is broken, with young native children committing suicide every day. Supporting Seva Foundation, which provides greatly needed eye care to native populations, amoung others internationally. I feel a modest donation helps atone for our collective guilt as a nation for what happened, and the benefits we glean today from the injustices that occurred just a few generations ago.

  • CE||

    I don't feel any guilt for the actions of others.

  • librarian||

    Or gratitude for the actions of others?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Unless someone else gave me an explicit, direct outright gift of cash, marketable securities or other tangible property of substantial market value or provided me with some direct service free of charge there is nothing to feel grateful about.

  • vek||

    As someone who is Indian enough to get some of that casino money if I cared to... Collective guilt is bullshit.

    Whites conquered their asses fair and square... Just as they had been doing to each other since the dawn of time. Why should Europeans feel more guilty about winning a series of wars just because their skin color is different?

    I know plenty of Indians that are doing fine for themselves. The ones in poverty just need to get their shit together like everybody else and they'll be fine.

    Donating is fine and well, but don't do it out of collective guilt, or expect it to help long term.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Collective ancient sin?

    The Catholic church wants its scam back.

  • TJJ2000||

    On Everyday; I thank my lucky stars for fellow Conservatives, be them Libertarian, Republican, Constitutionalists, that vote or pressure society and/or government to hold-on to our swindling supply of freedom of liberty, property, and individual rights/consequences.

    On that some note; I immediately find myself in dismay that I have become so thankful for things that once upon a time was the very definition of this great nation.. Where such Constitutional items were generally believed to be inalienable (permanent). What strikes me as astonishing is that today the DNC is by all means a communist regime. Short of their existence within the borders of the U.S. I can almost honestly say as a foreign entity they would probably be the target of a U.S. intervention war. How many countries have we gone to in order to "save" the people from communist dictators??? Today; it seems the battle has arrived right in our own backyards.

    Everyone has a right to their opinion. They can believe whatever they want in the U.S. and preach whatever they want. Thanks to the U.S. Constitution. Somehow today - that criminal who's opinion is, "I'll take of you and yours whatever I want." Has gone from the communistic idea into FAR TOO MUCH REALITY.

  • vek||

    It is sad how many things people just thought would never go away have been taken, or are being threatened. It is ming boggling how many people are willing to support taking their own rights away! :/

  • Tionico||

    What was behind the decision to divide the land and go capitalist and avandon socialist was their decision to, as they busied themselves staring at the clean bottoms of their food barrels in the larder, search the scriptures and see what God might have said on the matter. They had plenty of time to do so......

    they were reminded that God makes a very close connexion between what one's hand does, and what one's mouth gets to eat. Then there were the Proverbs..... "continual folding of the hands, andmuch nodding of the head, and one tends toward lack".... oh, no WAIT A MINUTE, that's NOT what it says. They had misremembered. What it actually says is "a LITTLE folding of the hands, a LITTLE nodding of the head, and POVERTY is upon you". As in, it will not delay.

    Oh, my..........

  • Sevo||

    Can't find the quote regarding the amount of 'private plot' (black market) food allowed the USSR to survive until the late '80s (it was far out of proportion to the area), but:
    "Stalin - New Biography of a Dictator" (O. V. Khlevniuk), pg124 (after Stalin HAD to allow private plots to avoid a repeat of the mass starvation):
    "Although private agriculture took up a minuscule amount of land compared with the kolkholzes, official statistics from 1937 show that it provided 38% of the country's vegetables and potatoes and 68% of its meat and dairy products".
    Stalin soon outlawed them again, but from that time forward, the black market had been established.

  • CE||

    I'm thankful there are still people out there standing up for liberty, even if they don't agree with me on everything.

  • fastestcarintheworld||

    Fastest Cars in The World We can measure automotive excellence in several ways, but top speed which an automobile can achieve is the one everyone secretly cares about the most.

  • Newreach||

    All men are equal before god

  • DebraCline||

    The bounty for which we give thanks this week was made possible by that early course correction to private property.

  • expensivewatch||

    Top 21 Most Expensive Watch in The World luxury collection of the world's most expensive watches thinks differently Here Money Is Time Top 21 Most Expensive Watches in The World

  • petsability1||

    Pet Pharmacy Petmeds and Pet Medicine Store Petsability is the Best Online Pet Pharmacy that provides Petmeds Pet Medicine Find Natural Medicines

  • fastesttrain||

    Top 12 Fastest Trains in the World Here are the world's fastest trains in commercial service, ranked by their operating speed Top 12 Fastest Trains in the World

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online