Added: 1 year ago
From: lonestarroy
Views: 1,757
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (4)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • You're assuming a legitimate origin of property ownership. In this model the land was owned by the government. Once the land was divided, they could do with it what they desired. (this includes, of course, selling it.)

    All forms of socialism have this in common: the state owns the means of production. Once the ownership became autonomous, it was a free market.

    A one time even split of property amongst the group of individuals who founded it is not, in anyway, socialism.

    The moral stands.

  • The moral lesson of this video is not exactly correct.

    In true a true free market, the land would have been sold to those willing to pay the highest price. William Bradford's model could actually be considered somewhat "socialist" since the land was split amongst everyone evenly... not just to those who could afford it.

    So while it is true that those who have a reason to try harder... will... it has little to do with Capitalism... and more to do with how to motivate others.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more