>>Those are not examples of socialism. Several of the items are in recognition of protecting individual rights. (the only proper role of a government). Victor, please....read these and ask yourself if they are actually examples of socialism.

There's the sophist definitions again. As his article points out re "socialist:"

There is nothing more feared and hated in America.
The word alone sends shivers down the spine of the American people.
Those three syllables conger up images of Big Brother Government ruling over us all, telling us what to eat, wear, buy, and think. Our children in national uniform being indoctrinated with propaganda in government education camps that use to be schools, turning them into little slaves. While their parents work twelve hour shifts in the concentration camp that slaughters rich successful billionaires, as the poor and needy get a million dollars a month in welfare. A murderous government waging a war against freedom and liberty to gain complete control over everyone and everything.

In fact, the definition of socialism revolves around "social ownership" usually involving public or co-operative ownership of means of production or services. For example, the military, roads, public libraries, police and fire departments, the USPS, student loans and grants and utilities like landfills and bridges.

IOW the first ten examples that you are laughing at. There are a few private roads or privately administered tolls but the rest is funded and owned by the public for the most part.

Laughing suggests buy-in to FUD like the italicized example above rather than sensible consideration. In particular, the concept that socialist principles are opposed to individual rights is sophist nonsense IMHO. In fact they can be MORE attuned to individual rights for the majority when the privateers decide they are aristocrats who ought to control the lot, or if the privateers run a public good like banking or sewers or healthcare or water or power into the ground and run away.

FWIW, some other nations have experience with transfer of public utilities to the private sector in exchange for cash and promises of efficiency. As an example, check out Air New Zealand that was bought back by the government for a song after the privateers almost put it under. Currently doing very well under government control to the point where it sold down to 53% for a nice profit for the taxpayer. The principle of State Owned Enterprises (SOE) is alive and well and of considerable benefit to the NZ citizenry. In the US, consider that healthcare costs far more than any other first world nation and while quality is good, it is not better than nations paying a fraction of the cost. What's the explanation if the US health market is run on private principles that are meant to deliver better efficiency and individual benefit?