In practice, socialism requires a ruling elite.

Gee, next thing one knows the government will be inventing the prototype of the Internet--oh wait.Cheap shots aside, I'm not actually arguing for a recreation of the free market. In the free market, profit is the sole determinant of what succeeds. Make money and you "win." I think that's a foolish way to do things, because people aren't perfectly rational and honest. They can be tricked, deceived, conned, or make a stupid decision--so the best product will not necessarily win out.Rather, if I am to propose a system like this (and note that I don't), such a system would require an extensive separate bureaucracy, ruthlessly patrolled for the slightest trace of corruption (most likely a separate ombudsman), with data being gathered as to how a company is doing (profit margins, effectiveness, quality, and so forth). This data would be made public, and based on the data, a set of randomly selected judges would proceed to pour over the data in a completely public process. Once this had been done, the measures I outlined would be taken to reward or punish government-owned companies, as appropriate.1. Governmental Elites and DemocracyThen I apologize for the misunderstanding, because I was explicitly referring to political rights--economic rights (such as starting a business) are very, very different from rights such as freedom of speech, because the legal protections are designed for different things. My logic isn't circular at all; in modern parlance, which I assume that we are using unless explicitly noted, democracy does not mean only "50% + 1 supporting something." Modern democratic theory--and if Pro wants to rant about how "The whole point of socialism is to deprive individuals of the right to choose what products they buy, of the right to sell goods and services for what others are willing to pay, and of the right to take risk in return for potential profit," then he needs to acknowledge that we are taking into account the predominant philosophy behind a concept rather than the concept at face value with nothing added--has implicit protections of political freedoms.Pro tries to argue that government bureaucrats aren't appointed by elected officials. Well, that's true in the case of low-level paper-pushers. However, these people do not decide policy. While it may be a joke that the secretary is the God of the Office, they are still limited to being obstructive when scheduling an appointment (and a complaint against them can still get them fired). The head of the EPA, on the other hand, has far more influence and power.Pro yet again argues that civil servants are immune from being replaced. I see no citation for this, no proof.2. More on BureaucracyAnd what keeps a governmental company from also being dependent on market forces? Nothing, that's what--there's nothing stopping a governmental company from matching supply to demand. Why does Pro continue to insist that a governmental company is somehow magically unable to account for how much people actually use a product or service?Short of incompetence in leadership--which Pro hasn't established to be any less likely in the private sector--there is no reason at all to not take the necessary steps. As rational creatures, we can study how people do things, and seek to emulate the proper techniques: Therefore, if a private company can account for market forces, a public company can too.3. Government-Owned CompaniesFirst, I'd like to note that Pro is shifting the goalposts. In his opening argument he readily admits--as is correct--that there is no example of 100% socialism or capitalism (well, few to no). Any discussion on how 100% socialism would work will always be theoretical, but that does not mean that we cannot look at actual data, or what we know of human behavior, and draw reasonable inferences from that. On to the rest of the counterattack.Pro argues that the individuals would be controlling the companies. Yes, that's true. So? That's no different than having an independent director for the Post Office, or NPR, or PBS, or Amtrak, any government agency. Basic rules are put in place by the government, and the government can deny the company continued existence. Pro never argued that the president, or the legislature, or some other central figure or group of figures of the government had to be in complete control. He never argued that there had to be a single, centralized bureaucracy.Oh, and Pro? I would do such a thing. I know many others who also would. We would do such a thing because we would want the credit/bragging rights, or because we actually want to help other people, or because we felt the work was rewarding. I myself plan on going into a field of architecture that is unusual, and will not net me the most money, but it is, ultimately, what I wish to do.Moreover, who ever said that there would be no profit involved? I certainly did not. If an independent agency made more than they spent, and this is directly attributable to something the head of the company did, then why wouldn't you pay that person more? Why wouldn't you allow the person who just came up with a brilliant innovation to earmark more money to try a new innovation?4. PoliceYet again, Pro claims that police have lifetime job security without any evidence... in this day and age, where the mantra of all is to shrink the size of government, is Pro really trying to argue that government workers can be confident that they will never be laid off?Pro misunderstands percentile. I am not saying that police wages are 66.3% higher. I am saying that, of all people making income in the USA, they make more income than 66.3% of income earners. That's pretty close to the middle of the Bell chart, all things considered. Of course, the "Bell chart" here is pretty lumpy.It's true that elites aren't only defined by money. But power can be limited in such a way that it makes someone not be an elite. Police have power, but it is very narrowly limited, and to be used for very specific things. If I have the power to arrest someone (after getting probable cause) or search a house (after getting a warrant or in very limited situations) that does not make me an elite--not according to the colloquial usage of the term, at least, and if the mere act of enforcing a law, or making a law, makes someone an elite, then the term "elite" has no meaning, and saying that socialism requires an elite is akin to saying that it requires a government!Under Pro's definition, every traffic cop, every person at an Amtrak desk, every mid-level bureaucrat, is a member of the elite. I find this absurd.5. On the Matter of the ElitePro has not refuted my main point in this section: The people who are paid more are the people who only have a high school diploma or less. Since when are these people making rules, anyway? I think you need a college degree or similar for that.6. ScandinaviaMe: Scandinavia is an example of a country that has heavy government control of industry.Pro: Me: That doesn't show what you think it does.Pro: Prove that Sweden/Norway/etc. have many regulations.Well, that's irrelevant. The point there is that Pro has a (bizarre) definition of socialism, admitted that there's no example in which there's 100% socialism or capitalism, and under those admissions, I am perfectly justified in bringing up a country that up until recently had a governmental monopoly on medicine as a counter-example. Heck, Pro didn't even show that the Soviet Union had government-controlled industries, or that North Korea does.----Pro relies on two main ideas, both of which are false:1. The real elites are not corporate CEOs, or rich politicians, but police officers (because they enforce laws) and bureaucrats.2. A government-owned company cannot understand supply and demand, and therefore cannot be competitive.My thanks to Pro for the fascinating debate.