Are you not aware that there are for-profit schools? And do you not support the idea of for-profit schools?

Absolutely I do (on both counts). The government, however, doesn't run public schools as for profit organizations.

I'm not trying to harp on this, but I'm trying to get at your distinction for what constitutes socialism. I don't agree that the government run industry has to necessarily be a for-profit business for it to count. I haven't really seen anything to that effect and it wasn't in your original definition. That was about public ownership for benefit. Do you mean public benefit as in the public benefits from the windfall?

Socialism's point is to have an economic system where the people benefit by way of owning means of production. The thinking is that, for instance, the best way to run a car plant is to have the government (or people, if you prefer) own that plant - you don't waste money on "inefficiencies" such as marketing, executive salaries, etc. The goal is still, as in a capitalist economy, to add value by way of people's labor.

The difference between this and a public school, is that a public school doesn't exist to add value to shareholders or the people; it exists for other purposes (ideally to educate young people; if you're into conspiracy theories - to subject them to a certain set of ideals). You may argue that it indirectly adds value, by producing valuable members of society, but that's not the goal.

Public school systems exist in both socialist and capitalist economies - and the goals are remarkably similar.

Public schools are socialistic because their intent is to (theoretically) provide a level playing field for children of all demographic and economic origins.

I am sorry but being a student of history, direct democracy doesn't work. It has only been successful one time in human history and that was Athens and that didn't last long. Democracies now are either Republics or Parliamentarian democracies. Both of them work fine. I do think we should get rid of the electoral college and elect presidents like France does. That would give the country more parties which would be a good thing. Direct democracy would just lead to anarchy because you get 300 million people in one room.

When the average cost for a doctor is ~$80 just for the visit (office overhead: receptionist, nurse, doctor, malpractice insurance, and the real estate costs) before cost-of-tests and treatment, and then the tests are outsourced to a lab that charges for personnel, technicians, the real estate, and then the tests), it would be nice to cut out the middle man and just go to the lab, wouldn't it?

On that note, why not give tax exemptions for medical buildings, and maybe in exchange put price controls on the doctors while disallowing overcharges to cover malpractice payments, but would this constitute a socialism or would it serve for the purposes of enforcing fair profit regulation on the medical profession in a capitalist society?
Why should capitalism be defined as a free-for-all?
Why should conditional capitalism for the common good, including fair profit, be defined as socialism?

isn't that what Human, Civil rights are for???

Well, it's definitely the main goal here in Finland. Without the free public school system constantly creating new generations of highly educated professionals from all social classes, we would end up being a 3rd world country in a couple of decades.

Then again, we don't really have any natural resources except timber, so it's the only way for us to survive. But I would imagine that USA would also like to be a highly educated nation, as highly educated nations tend to make a lot more money.

It depends on how the civil rights are protected, if at all. If all of the policies are determined via the people, enough votes could guarantee that civil right infringement remains legal.

I still disagree with this definition of socialism, although it's noteworthy that you probably don't view universal health care as socialism either.