DiamondDave
Army Vet
No they aren't. How does a Fire Department or Police Department fall into this definition:?
so·cial·ism (ssh-lzm)
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Social contract is a mutually agreed method in which it is practical and useful and contributes to the general welfare to share certain infrastructure and some basic services. All such things are approved by the people before they are initiated. It is important not to confuse that with socialism that presumes government license over all that the people own and produce, and which controls the means by which the people will produce and distribute goods and profit from their own industry.
They would fall under that definition the same way nationalized health care would.
Those people provide a service that could theoretically be done by private firms or individuals.
The services being the "goods" that are produced and distributed.
Now, personally, I see nothing wrong with "Socialism" like the Fire Department, but some die-hard capitalist idealogues might disagree.
But you do not have federally mandated fire departments except for with federal properties owned by the fed... I.E. military base FD's etc.... does the fed own your personal well being or body, or is that your responsibility to take care of it or pay for the care of it?
The fire department is a LOCAL choice... and funny, I live in an area where we choose to publicly fund a local fire department through donation... and guess what, if their services are used and you have not been a person who donates, you are given a BILL