Public infrastructure Is Not The Same As Socialism

Lots of people seem to be getting public infrastructure such as police, fire and the building of roads confused with Socialism.

They aren't the same as defrauding the public to create social welfare programs. There is a giant difference between bloated Federal wealth redistribution schemes and building local infrastructure.

If D.C. fell into the Atlantic we would all be better off.

a reply to: Metallicus

Only idiots think that public services are socialism (and most probably an idiot under 30 who doesn't know better). Providing public services for the public defense and welfare has been going on long before socialism or even commonwealth existed. The Romans provided numerous public services and I am sure many other ancient kingdoms and empires also did before Rome.


Public service is a service which is provided by government to people living within its jurisdiction, either directly (through the public sector) or by financing provision of services. The term is associated with a social consensus (usually expressed through democratic elections) that certain services should be available to all, regardless of income, physical ability or mental acuity. Even where public services are neither publicly provided nor publicly financed, for social and political reasons they are usually subject to regulation going beyond that applying to most economic sectors. Public policy[2][not in citation given] when made in the public's interest and motivations can provide public services. Public service is also a course that can be studied at a college or university. Examples of public services are the fire brigade, police, air force, and paramedics.


Most people spouting that don't even know what Socialism actually is.

As a matter of governance, socialism is a system that does not recognize private property, be it physical or intellectual. It can’t. In order to equitably redistribute resources to the people, you first have to take it from them. You have no right to what you produce or what you earn. All of your money, your work, even your family belongs to the state because only the state and the political ruling class can equitably distribute it to us plebs.

a reply to: Metallicus

Great points. And now that you got me thinking about it therein lies a Big Story of sorts to this whole thing and my big thing against it... maybe socialized medical can work in some other places with some other governments. But not in this place with the government we all know and loathe....

And these public infrastructure like police: give the Fed.gov some power and they create the War On Drugs.

Now imagine what they'd do with total control over health, it's proverbial War On Drugs hell spawn parallel. Or perhaps the full Textbook Fascist Obamacare (mandatory crony capitalist) or full Socialized is the proverbial War On Drugs parallel? Or imagine a proverbial War On Drugs machination initiative that would spawn within the full mandatory system scheme that is itself a War On Drugs parable.

a reply to: Metallicus

True it is a murky subject line to give a definite answer.

Combining tax $$$ (forced property taxes-charges, income tax, city tax...) to pay for a service or improvement is very close to socialism, it not meeting the definition of socialism. In order for it to be socialism it ownership would be the community or govt if I understand it correctly.


I can't tell if Hitler's name, socialism or fascism is misused more in threads and posts.

a reply to: seasonal

Socialized would be if the government took over the industry, all of the workers become government employees. The government owns all the property involved. The government controls the whole shebang.

Roads private contractor corp's bid on the building projects. Government workers patch the holes. The debate here though: its mostly local governments problems aside from the Interstate's.

This screaming for FULL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL HEALTHCARE, is an entirely other animal.

a reply to: Metallicus


It's starts to flirt with semantics.

Yes, basic education, infrastructure, cops, et al are paid for by those that both use those services and don't use them.

It IS a form of socialism. Of a sort. The distinction is they are largely agreed upon. By the vast majority. The current version is huge, without mandate and ENFORCED on far more than a small percentage....likely in many cases a significant majority.

The OP, iMO, clouds the key differences by saying they are not socialism. They are. If one follows through on that premise, then one must allow that not all socialism is by definition, bad.


The Tenth Amendment, anyone??? Each to his own.....just don't ram your rubbish version of socialism down our throats, thank you very much.

a reply to: nwtrucker

There's also a fairly significant portion of middle class tax payers who have never once had a good interaction with a public servant. Police are constantly overstepping their roles. I've never once had a police interaction I've wanted- and I've had many where they were only there to win my day. Several where they were there to try and ruin my day, but couldn't because I was prepared to prove that I was in the right- guilty until proven innocent comes to mind.

Health Care is corrupt to the point that I'd rather suffer an easily cured infection for six months until I can sort it out myself than go to the doctor and see a never ending chain of over paid half wits who aren't interested in helping so much as offering a controlled overpriced medication that had more side effects than useful effects... Because it means they can schedule a follow-up appointment and get paid again.

Fire fighters? They'll do more damage than good in a private residence. A small fire might destroy a room, a fire department will destroy a building to fight it. I've seen it first hand.

There's very little public infrastructure I believe in. City folk depend on it for water, sidewalks, and safety- but many of us with property would rather go without most of their help.


I'd vote for the leave me the hell alone party... But they don't exist. Instead I'm forced to keep retreating until the local government simply doesn't have the resources to properly harass me... But they do keep raising the taxes and increasing their harassment efficiency yearly, so I guess I just have to accept those bastards stealing from me to give to themselves under the guise of helping the poor.

originally posted by: Metallicus
Lots of people seem to be getting public infrastructure such as police, fire and the building of roads confused with Socialism.

They aren't the same as defrauding the public to create social welfare programs. There is a giant difference between bloated Federal wealth redistribution schemes and building local infrastructure.

If D.C. fell into the Atlantic we would all be better off.

So socialism is okay for programs you want and use but not those that you don't want and don't use.

Inconsistant thinking my friend.

a reply to: Metallicus

All societies are a mix...

Socialism by definition is ANYTIME tax dollars are used for the benefit of all, rather than the benefit of ONLY those who are paying.

What your talking about is a cartoon socialism that is not the definition..

Just because you have been trained to instantly hate anything said after people say socialism.doesnt change the definition.

a reply to: Metallicus
Definition of socialism.
"political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."


Anytime that is happening it is socialism..

Including police fire and military ...

a reply to: FyreByrd

It isn't hard to look up a definition to see if you are right about it lol..

Socialism: political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Metallicus




I can't tell if Hitler's name, socialism or fascism is misused more in threads and posts.

Not sure. I can tell you this, the words socialism and fascism are often misused, especially when people try to make them equatable. The only sense the two terms are equatable Is that they are equally bad for those who have to live under their influence.

a reply to: nwtrucker

No what has happened is the conservative talking heads have sold just one more piece of random BS..

Instead of socialism meaning this..

"political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."


To conservative pundits socialism means:

Taking up all the money and buisness and redistributing it to the worst common denominator..

When every society decides what works best for profit, and what doesn't.

a reply to: SpeakerofTruth


Except socialism is the tried and true system used for the vast majority of history..

Right wing talking heads take 2 worst case scenario examples..

The conviently never reference.. Sweden, Norway or Switzerland..

Forgetting that capitalism is the new (very successful) experiment..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: SpeakerofTruth


Except socialism is the tried and true system used for the vast majority of history..

You have offiicially lost your mind, you liberals never fail to amuse me.

Some interesting responses in this thread to be sure.

originally posted by: lordcomac
a reply to: nwtrucker

There's also a fairly significant portion of middle class tax payers who have never once had a good interaction with a public servant. Police are constantly overstepping their roles. I've never once had a police interaction I've wanted- and I've had many where they were only there to win my day. Several where they were there to try and ruin my day, but couldn't because I was prepared to prove that I was in the right- guilty until proven innocent comes to mind.

Health Care is corrupt to the point that I'd rather suffer an easily cured infection for six months until I can sort it out myself than go to the doctor and see a never ending chain of over paid half wits who aren't interested in helping so much as offering a controlled overpriced medication that had more side effects than useful effects... Because it means they can schedule a follow-up appointment and get paid again.

Fire fighters? They'll do more damage than good in a private residence. A small fire might destroy a room, a fire department will destroy a building to fight it. I've seen it first hand.

There's very little public infrastructure I believe in. City folk depend on it for water, sidewalks, and safety- but many of us with property would rather go without most of their help.


I'd vote for the leave me the hell alone party... But they don't exist. Instead I'm forced to keep retreating until the local government simply doesn't have the resources to properly harass me... But they do keep raising the taxes and increasing their harassment efficiency yearly, so I guess I just have to accept those bastards stealing from me to give to themselves under the guise of helping the poor.

I hear you! The arrogance can be unbelievable. I'm too old to be my own 'sheriff' or be deputized...

I recall a time when it was much more balanced and tolerable. That would be my preference over a kill or be killed environment. It did work and I believe can again.

Preference, I suppose....

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: nwtrucker

No what has happened is the conservative talking heads have sold just one more piece of random BS..

Instead of socialism meaning this..

"political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."


To conservative pundits socialism means:

Taking up all the money and buisness and redistributing it to the worst common denominator..

When every society decides what works best for profit, and what doesn't.

Sorry but you omit the enforcement aspect of your theoretical idyllic scenario. I don't buy into Marx and I no longer buy into Ann Rand. She never envisioned the super corporation takeover, either. (Of which, the majority support this version of your Socialism.)

Smaller indigenous nations, groups that make socialism work are acceptable to me. They agree to it. It's not enforced .Those that don't care for it, likely leave....usually to the U.S.. Over one million per year, legally, by the way.

It goes back to the Tenth, if your state, votes for it, fine by me. You enforce it on my state? Your up the creek without a paddle!

Likely it will come down to that. Somehow I doubt you'd be willing to back your beliefs up.

That is the reality of the current situation. JMO, though.

a reply to: Metallicus
In reality it is a form of socialism,before denying it,look up the definition,then try to justify it before ,it is just'accepted socialism,in old days towns banded together,no need to have specialised fire fighters,road workers etc,you can cite your Roman empire crap,but doesn't fit the definition

a reply to: JoshuaCox

And the talking heads are only saying this because the people are in control are not the corps.

I would choose community over corps control of things in a heart beat.