Anony mous,
I guess the problem I'm having with these conversations, is the intense strawmanning going on.
No one here, including myself, has advocated a wholly socialist society, yet when democratic socialism is brought up, you ignore the democratic part, and simply point out the pitfalls of an all socialist society. Strawmanning at it's finest.
When we point out the many socialist institutions in the United States, your only answer is, "but those aren't really socialist!" By whose definition?
As far as your idea that it's fine for government to begin programs, and then hand them off to private industry, I'm great with that, as long as the industry pays back to the government all of the people's money that was spent establishing the infrastructure. Otherwise, there's nothing to stop them from using their own money to compete with the government programs. Isn't that how capitalism works?
Here's my summation of your arguments
1. Pure socialism doesn't work (We all agree).
2. Any socialist element in a capitalist society isn't socialist, because socialism doesn't work, and since that society works, those elements aren't socialist. (is that about right?)
3. Government is fine for getting things going, but private industry will manage things better. (sure, after all the hard work is done! I'll remember that when I ask someone to give me their business because I can run it better.)
I'll stick to empirical evidence rather than quasi-libertarian theory.