Trump

[pjknibbs]

The results come in at 2:1 against. The numbers are so clear cut that it's likely the question won't be raised again in a generation.

Still think Joe Public understands or trusts PR?

There were people on these very forums who said they were going to vote against that measure because it wasn't PR *enough*--they said it was just a halfway house that wasn't worth doing. I said at the time to those people that, if the vote was No, it wouldn't be remembered as a vote against that specific type of PR, but a vote against PR in general...and you have just excellently proved my point, thank you!

[fiksal]

But the point is, we were happy with the help we got, but we didn't take it for granted.

Good that you got help.

But, I have seen people who came here were on welfare for a whole year and still whine about something like "America so rich but they didn't do enough for me", welp, I guess those people would have a different opinion about "capitalist" America

There are always going to be lazy people, there's no way around it. Best one can do is to protect the system and make sure the help goes where it's needed.

I am not yet however sure why you are so against "socialism" though, when just then you've admitted you've had help.


In US's two party system, voting Republican (as the main anti socialism party) is basically voting against some or all of those systems (depends which way the wind blows in the party).

BUT, Society Safety net =/= Socialism.

Why not? To me it exactly is.

Socialism doesnt need to be pure to be called that. In the same example, we like to call ourselves democratic and capitalist, but there are important exceptions that dont make us quite of either.


I am fan of socialism, a fan of capitalism, and a fan of democracy. I'd not want to lose any of those things.

[Mightysword]

Why not? To me it exactly is.

To me it is not. There is a line for everything, cross that and it becomes something else. Love and treasure someone too much and it may turn into obsessionism and pocessism. Take an example: higher education.

- Should it be subsidized? Yes.
- Should student receive FASA to help them pay for tuition? Yes.
- Should higher education be free? No.

Not suprising seeing socialist Bernie is proposing is proposing the last one. People should be given opportunities and given help to start, but the drive to better themselves should always involves a personal skate. Society should make sure you're not starving and freezing to death, but if you want a better life for yourself? Earn it.

For the record when I came I lived in a slum for a number of years, but never once we believed it's the government job to pluck us out of that slum, and never take advantage of some of the "options" suggested to us. Even now with a decent income, there are things we can afford but we strictly view as 'luxuries', yes they're nice to have and we enjoy having them but make no mistake, we don't believe it's something "necessary for us to live" and if warranted we can definitely live without. What worry me is in a lot of narrative from the far left (read socialist), a lot of these "luxuries" are being presented as necessity amenities because you know ... standard living. People can't possibly live without it so they should be provided by right.

Remember I came from a socialist country so I'm more critical about it. I believe it's in the good of human nature to help each others when we're down on our feet (safety net), but I also believe it's our nature to tether toward the lowest common denominator. We work hard because we want to be rewarded at the end, often time not because we simply just want to work hard, if we can achieve a better life without working hard, most of us will choose not to work hard. Far left socialism sound nice in theory (just like communism), but it sap people of personal desire and thus, their drive.

[Ketraar]

Remember I came from a socialist country

You mean a socialist labelled country. As of today I still have not been able to spot a socialist country, despite many having the word in the name. But name alone does not count.

There are many variants of socialism, the most people point to, the Marx version, is based on utopian settings and is known to not work with this type of human. Note that its the human factor that is flawed, not the system.

Still various shades of socialism can and should be integrated in modern societies, in fact I'd argue that you cant have true democracy without SOME socialism, as its needed to have some guaranties for equality, even the (utopian) American Dream requires some socialism to be present for it to work (which is why it does not work btw.)

Having all education being freely accessible has been proven to be most beneficial. If you want to filter access it should be based n merit and not on money. So even higher education should be free to those that prove worthy, hence have the skills and talent to benefit from it. This is socialist and still more efficient than the current system of mostly people with money to have access despite their lack of skill or talent.

MFG

Ketraar

[Mightysword]

It's more correct so say there is no "communism", but socialism? Plenty. Communism is the end result, socialism is the mean/procress to achieve that end. Whether it's realistic or not didn't stop people from trying. Most of Latin America "are" socialist, fail Socialist yes, but socialist nonetheless because they are certainly NOT capitalism.

Also let's try to avoid generalizing too much here. Because if you do, then pretty much every argument is a moot point. Anything can be everything, and everything is nothing at all. When we define socialism, capitalism, communism, facism it's obvious we're talking about direction or the path the society is pushed toward. Again, pretty much all modern capitalism have some kind of safety net, but that's not socialism. In fact, the reason why Capitalism tend to have a better safety net because thanks to Capitalism it can afford that, whether "true" socialism screw themselves up so much that they can't afford a proper safety net. It's an ironic twist, Capitalism societies to be the one that generate enough Wealth that it can better afford socialism, but the more a society veers toward socialism, the more it drives itself into the ground and deprive itself the mean to actually sustain socialism.

Note that its the human factor that is flawed, not the system.

I dont understand the point of this statement. We are, after all, human. We're not creating the system for alien from another planet. If a system can not be of use to us then it's a bad system, irrelevant to how good it is on paper.

If you want to filter access it should be based n merit and not on money.

Funny, that's exactly how the system in my country (socialist) operate. Public Education is heavily subsidized, and you'll get the best facility, curriculum, instructor, prestige in a public school while paying less money. Whether private schools are for the drop out or for those who can't make it into the public system: much higher tuition, crappy teaching, and degree that often doesn't worth shit.

The reason is simple: the country is poor (read: true socialism/anti-capitalism = poor), with limited resource it can only afford to invest in individual that are willing and capable. Free education for everyone? Not possible, don't have the money for it, the class size is already around 50 students per class, and the battle to get in often is 1 vs 1000.

Is it an effective use of resource? Yes. But if you think it will somehow expand the education more evenly, then it can't be any further than reality. Under that system, someone with an average learning capacity with an average income means they're literally screw.

So even higher education should be free to those that prove worthy

It is essentially free. When I first enter University, I was a 4.2 GPA honor highschool graduate. I was still living in the slum so our family income was low enough to receive federal grant to cover most of my tuition. I was also swimming in Scholarship that I have some extra remaining to buy myself stuff like Calculator, Laptop ...etc... Sadly in my arrogant and complacent I lost most of my scholarship after one year, and had to start working to cover the shortfall that wasn't cover by federal grant, I secured more funding again after my GPA went up. So ... working as intended?

This is socialist and still more efficient than the current system of mostly people with money to have access despite their lack of skill or talent.

Are we talking about America here, or some country that I don't know about? I can't comment if it's the latter, but if it's former than sorry, it sounds exactly like the kind of narrative that the far left want to sell people, and it's nowhere near the truth.

[Ketraar]

Your narrative is skewed and hardly based on rational thinking. Every time you mention socialism I can here you cringe and that affects your reasoning it seems.

Assuming the resources of a country change based on political setting is the kind of skewed reasoning that makes debating these issues near impossible.

We are, after all, human. We're not creating the system for alien from another planet. If a system can not be of use to us then it's a bad system, irrelevant to how good it is on paper.

Sorry but have you ever heard of philosophy? The recognition of our flaws is the first step to improvement, so the system will have to wait for society to catch up. That is how it has worked in the past, or did we not wait millennia for democracy?

I could go on but I guess its rather pointless and its getting way off topic anyway.

MFG

Ketraar

[clakclak]

Both.. [ external image ]

I'd love to know if non-English media does the same, or whether US media just looks worse because large numbers of people access it regularly.[...]

Finally! A question I can answer, by presenting you with a subbed non-english media piece about wether or not non-english media also is "inept, or (and) intentionally dishonest". Keep in mind that this show (or more precisely the "Kabarettisten" behind it) is pretty left leaning, for this certain video that is not as mutch of a problem as for other videos made by them. (English subs can be turned on in the bottom right corner of the youtube video player.)

[Mightysword]

Your narrative is skewed and hardly based on rational thinking. Every time you mention socialism I can here you cringe and that affects your reasoning it seems.

Assuming the resources of a country change based on political setting is the kind of skewed reasoning that makes debating these issues near impossible.

I don't know about skewl or rational thinking, I know what I say is what I see happening in reality, I cite examples for everything I say, what is "your" examples? Cite me a "successful, long term sustainable" socialist country that also help advance humanity interest and progress. I don't know any, but I know everytime Capilism and Socialism are matched up, Capitalism triumps. I simple counter your point (i.e education), but I see you prefer just fluff over it instead of doing a counter-counter.

And no, I consider myself being "objective". Why? Because I don't hold any cross social class contempt. When I said I now have decent income it's only because I'm content with what I have, not because I earnt a lot. My earning is still less than the median income in the US, so I am a member of the bottom half of society. But I don't hold contempt against the other half, I don't hold them responsible for lifting me to their own level, that is my job and a path I prefer to walk on my own. I don't hate rich people, even when I'm poor. People at the bottom half often fancy this idea of socialism will somehow lift them to the other half, no it doesn't.

And funny, with this quote of yours

This is socialist and still more efficient than the current system of mostly people with money to have access despite their lack of skill or talent.

I think it is you who are obviously skewl and bias in your opinion. Sometime it's worth to look at your reflection in the mirror pal

Sorry but have you ever heard of philosophy?

Ever heard of Marxism? I think people call it philosophy, and one humanity can do without. So what if it's a philosophy? There are that is grounded and pertain to the human nature, but there are also that floating in the cloud pretending human can be god, useless. To me, socialism is not something I only know through theory and philosophy, I see and live in its reality, and know it doesn't work.

Your point about democracy ... well, there is a reason why Rome started a Republican and ended as an Empire, it's not like human waited a few thousand years later for American to invented it. We simply didn't have a platform or infrastructure to support it until modern time.



And off topic? Don't think so, after all it started and still about Bernie, who is a candidate in this election. He is the one who spewning a lot of far left nonsense, and to my surprise, despite being a democrat Clinton had the courage to call him bluff on a lot of those. Everyone agree at this point Sander is finished, the reason he's still in the race because he hopes he can pull Clinton further to the left. I hope she resists, after all beside his hardcore rhetoric on immigrant, Trump is actually more centrist than the average conservative these days. They'll be a good match up in November.

[fiksal]

Why not? To me it exactly is.

To me it is not.

Well then, that's really it isn't it. I call some parts of US as "socialist already", you do not. You say socialism is bad, I say it's not because I like what we have now.

I dont believe I misuse the word - Socialism.

There is a line for everything, cross that and it becomes something else. Love and treasure someone too much and it may turn into obsessionism and pocessism. Take an example: higher education.

- Should it be subsidized? Yes.
- Should student receive FASA to help them pay for tuition? Yes.
- Should higher education be free? No.

If anyone who should pay for higher education - that's people who can afford it.
I am not with you on this - I want to see subsidized/free or whatever flavor of education. It can be called whatever, as long as it's where students are not in debt up to their eyeballs when they are done.

Education shouldn't be a privilege in a generally educated country. (I'd even say, if I were a ruthless dictator I'd make education mandatory, and make people crunch higher math, astronomy, political science, etc, hehe)

So as far as taxes and budgets are distributed, there are areas that could take a hit for this.

Not suprising seeing socialist Bernie is proposing is proposing the last one.

Will see if that works out, it should be interesting at least. Let the best man (or woman) win

People should be given opportunities and given help to start, but the drive to better themselves should always involves a personal skate. Society should make sure you're not starving and freezing to death, but if you want a better life for yourself? Earn it.

Yep, I agree with you on that, which is what you'd be doing when you'd have "free" education.

For instance, in the country of my birth - Russia - the education is/was free. So in order to succeed you'd need to prove yourself above other students. Otherwise you'll not be admitted to the university of your choice, or even finish highschool. In US, sometimes you can just pay your way with money.

Remember I came from a socialist country so I'm more critical about it.

So have I, a partially socialist, partially capitalist country, depending on a year.
And I had nothing in US, other than a place to live and my family.

[Mightysword]

If anyone who should pay for higher education - that's people who can afford it.
I am not with you on this - I want to see subsidized/free or whatever flavor of education. It can be called whatever, as long as it's where students are not in debt up to their eyeballs when they are done.

The thing is though, isn't it essentially free already? You said it yourself that you made it through college with grants and scholarship, so am I. If you're on low income college are practically free, as long as you don't keep switching major or flunk the classes. Again, using myself as an example:

- I enter university as a low income living a slum (didn't even start with college).
- After 4 years I got my BS and a minor.
- 3 Years after that I got my first master.
- 3 years later at the present, I'm working on my 2nd master.

The point is: I have never taken a loan in that entire process. Yes, there were some tempting moment for me to take a loan during my undergraduate, but even if I didn't resist I wouldn't end up with more than 10k debt. I was able to do it through meticulous calculation and giving up on a lot of life comfort as well as setting reasonable goals, but it IS possible. My best friend flunk his first 2 semesters in college and lost his FASA, then decided to take a 20k loan to attend a tradeschool to become a mechanic simply because "he heard Car mechanic makes a lot of money". He dropped out after a year, and still working on odd jobs to pay back that 20k. He's probably part of the statistic where people say American students are overburden in debt, but I don't see it as the system's fault.

Yep, I agree with you on that, which is what you'd be doing when you'd have "free" education.

Like I said, it's already essentially free. The different between providing assistant through conditional re-embersment and just flat out make it free is that it enforces some kind of accountability. FASA's requirement isn't high: just maintain a 2.5 GPA and don't flunk your classes. If it's simply free, what will prevent someone from keep flunking? Or keep changing majors?

For instance, in the country of my birth - Russia - the education is/was free. So in order to succeed you'd need to prove yourself above other students. Otherwise you'll not be admitted to the university of your choice, or even finish highschool. In US, sometimes you can just pay your way with money.

If you read my post after the one you're quoting, it's the same system in my country - merit base, and trust me I prefer that one comparing to the US. But I don't believe it really makes education more accessible. Like I (and you) said, fail to prove your merit meaning your education is over, sometime as early as middleschool or highschool. As least here flunking the class means you lose your fasa, but you can still have the option to pay to participate again, whether there if you fail they kick you out.

And no, in the US even if you can afford to pay yourself into the school, you still have to prove yourself capable to enter and making it through the program to get your degree (the attrition rate is very high), it doesn't buy you a degree, unless it's a school with degree no one care about.

I would agree with free-education as long as there is something in place to ensure the people participating are hold responsible for their performance, either through merit or something else. A lot of resource doesn't mean unlimited resource, and should always be used effectively, not floundering irresponsibly.

[Ketraar]

I would agree with free-education as long as there is something in place to ensure the people participating are hold responsible for their performance, either through merit or something else. A lot of resource doesn't mean unlimited resource, and should always be used effectively, not floundering irresponsibly.

This is socialism, its there for everyone, doesn't mean its not regulated to make sure its not waisted.

- I enter university as a low income living a slum (didn't even start with college).

You keep using you as an example and even if I recognise your efforts and hurdles, you did have access. The problem starts way before that. People not having basic education, people not having basic standard of living to develop aspirations to get education in the first place.

Socialism is where you have a minimum base line where everyone is guaranteed the basics, and its not just access to water. You can find it in the Human Rights Charter for example

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

I could go on but I reckon you can read it yourself and if you look carefully you'll recognise much socialism in there. The assumption that if you provide the basic needs to everyone it will lead to people stopping to try to better themselves, or worse thinking everyone is a lazy bastu and once provided with the minimum there would be no need for them make an effort is backwards thinking by people with privileges and possibly projecting.

Its mostly visible in northern and central EU countries that good social systems that provide basic needs to most will be cheaper and more effective than the "everyone for themselves" shenanigans.

And not even going to dive deep into the fact that the US and most countries are not even capitalist systems, as that would require fairness as a base, but we all know most modern economies rely heavily on cartels and resemble oligarchies more than free marked systems, but that would be a theses on its own.

MFG

Ketraar

[Mightysword]

This is socialism, its there for everyone, doesn't mean its not regulated to make sure its not waisted.

Ok, then tell me, how would you regulate it? How would you make sure if it's not wasted? How would you deal with people that fell out of regulation? If it's implied there are people who might be excluded, will it still remain true as "being there for everyone"?

The problem starts way before that. People not having basic education, people not having basic standard of living to develop aspirations to get education in the first place.

Again, that's why I ask in which place of the world we're talking about here? Because in the US:

- K12 are free and mandatory. So that's your basic education right there.
- College are essentially free as I explained, as long as you perform. Tell me, if this is not high enough, how far up the line is your "basic" ?
- There are housing, subsidized apartment, foodstamp, utility assistance ...etc...

But the most important question ... is aspiration something needed to be given? Because the narrative I usually hear is that it has to be given. When I sleep on an old sofa in a run down apartment with no heat in winter, my aspiration is to have a house with working heat with a proper bed, I didn't need to draw it from something profound. Accept your Fate or crawl out of the hole to a better life, I believe that's a personal decision ... and a personal responsibility. Btw, in the US there is a Federal Grant call "First Generation", which is a grant to give a college student extra money if their parents didn't have college education, can that be seen as encouraging aspiration?

Socialism is where you have a minimum base line where everyone is guaranteed the basics,

And this is where my problem, the line for "minimum base line" is often fuzzy when it comes to socialism. Providing the minimum base line is what society safety net is for, but socialism seems to demand more than that. Again, in the US as I explained one can get free education up to college (and pretty much University too if one has merit), but somehow that's not enough as a "base line" for the far left. So what is the baseline? Is the society now responsible to put people in Medical School, Harvard, MIT and the like for free ?

There is this famous saying that you're probably aware (with probably some variation): a hungry man will only wish for a loaf of bread. But after he has a loaf of bread, he will wish to have some ham. Once the ham is in front of him, he might start wishing to have some wine to go with it. Now I'm all for giving a starving man a loaf of bread, but if he wants the ham and win, he's better go get them himself.

[mrbadger]

It is perhaps interesting that Socialism, Marxism and Capitalism were creations of the middle classes, not the poor (that Socialism is supposed to help) or the rich/ (Captiliisms primary beneficiaries).

Nobility isn't the same as rich always, so I'm not sure where they fit in today.

Our Queen is not poor, but the is when compared to say Bill Gates. What Nobility is, is locked away from us normal folk. No matter how rich Bill is, he will never be nobility. When socialism got started nobility were the ones who controlled everything. Thanks to capitalism that is no longer true.

Marx, seen as the originator of Socialism, was not a rich man, but he did not come from a poor background. His ideas were nieve, impractical, and forever tainted by the rise of Communism under Stalin (who, whatever he claimed, or is claimed about him, was no Marxist).

Capilalism wasn't needed by the old money rich. They do well no matter what political system they exist in, so long as the poor are kept under control, they hold the reigns of power, and they avoid revolutions.

The problem was, before either of these systems (or mutated forms thereof, neither exist in their pure form anywhere), the Middle class were limited in wealth increase and social status acheivements unless they had access to war or trade to boost their status.

America represents probably the most Capitalist society we have. It's not pure Capitalism, and it has by no means resulted in a perfect system.

The UK tries to be more Capitalist, but we just don't seem capable of it to the same extent. I don't think that's because of socialism. It's historical.

Pre the world wars we were a static society where Capitalism helped a few get rich and powerful, but not enough.

We had a civil war, but that was between the nobilty/rich (no poor people held power in parliament) and the crown (the ultimate nobility) not between the middle class and the rich. Not like France/Russia/China.

America didn't have much of that baggage, it was filled by people who were trying to get away from that sort of thing. Although they only got shot of it through again, mostly the efforts of the middle classes.

Maybe they had just enough social mobility to avoid full blown socialism.

It certainly didn't hurt that America got a lot of initial wealth generation done through slavery, actual or virtual.

(my ancestors owned a plantation, and lotsa slaves in the colonies, I know something of this, although that money has thankfully long since vanished from my side of the family)

To wht extent slavery influenced american capitalism I don't know, but it seems there is still a lot of baggage from that too.
But I'm no expert. It also seems to be creating its own nobility. To me at least.

Trump is new money, looked down on by the old money people and super rich, and (because he knows poor people speak), looked up to by the poor. Under any system but Capitalism I doubt he'd get far, he pisses off too many people in power.

He, like anyone else in his position, doesn't care about the poor. Just like Lenin et al, he's using them to get into power. And like Lenin and such it's working.

Poor people aren't the key though, he needs the middle classes. Can his policies keep them happy is the thing.

I still think he's a dangerous lunatic who shouldn't get to be president, but as has been pointed out, my view is that of an outsider.

[Ketraar]

And this is where my problem, the line for "minimum base line" is often fuzzy when it comes to socialism.

No its not fuzzy. I quoted the document of that base line, its called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its all there on paper, no fuzzyness, no confusion.

On top of things it was elaborated by a committee lead by a person you might have heard of, Eleanor Roosevelt, first lady to a US President, a socialist.

Marx, seen as the originator of Socialism,

I'd argue that a chap called Jesus was a socialist, in fact possibly even communist, if one is to believe in many tales around that figure.

MFG

Ketraar

[mrbadger]

Marx, seen as the originator of Socialism,

I'd argue that a chap called Jesus was a socialist, in fact possibly even communist, if one is to believe in many tales around that figure.

MFG

Ketraar

that didn't really go well for him, but then a socialist who pissed off rome? It wasn't really going to end well was it:)

[Mightysword]

And this is where my problem, the line for "minimum base line" is often fuzzy when it comes to socialism.

No its not fuzzy. I quoted the document of that base line, its called The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Its all there on paper, no fuzzyness, no confusion.

And that's the exact example of fuzziness. I'm asking specific question, and you give me general statements, and yes, general statements are exactly what those articles are. Not really different than the American Bill of Right really, "the right to happiness" is a general statement, what exactly, entail happiness?

Again, within our argument, you and others keep bringing up "the right to basic education", that's a general/fuzzy statement. For the record I agree with the statement, but I want a clear definition for it. You seem to try to avoid the specific question, which not very unlike far left activist. They always trumpet general statements like "we have the right to basic education" and make people believe they are not given those, yet they never seem to define what it is, because I have a feeling keeping the statement general means they can keep moving the goal post.


So again, no beating around the bush, no philosophical suggestion, no general assumption, no further debate, please define what is "basic education": if free access up to college level is not enough to form the "basic" education to satisfy you? Where do you draw the line that a person had received enough 'basic' education?

[Ketraar]

Not sure what you are trying, but if you expect me to crunch numbers on how to fix any system, I must disappoint you I don't have those numbers. Also not being a self-centred person I dont expect MY line to be the one to be valid, which is easy to grasp really, as it should be clear that once you have the broad concept, crunching numbers is up for debate.

So again, no beating around the bush, no philosophical suggestion, no general assumption, no further debate, please define what is "basic education"

42

Seriously, you reaching here. First the examples were poor, now they are too broad, next they are in wrong font... I dont need to be more specific, its specific enough to anyone willing to see and read. You dont need to agree, but demanding crunched numbers of specific data on a ideology debate is showing lack of argumentation. We are debating philosophy (socialism vs other), once we have the philosophy in place we can crunch numbers and I'll be more than happy to figure it out.

MFG

Ketraar

[Mightysword]

No, I'm not asking you to crunch number, and you're trying to make it sound more complicated than it is, so yes to me you're just trying to avoid the straight answer.

K5 -> K9 -> K12 -> COLLEGE -> undergraduate -> graduate -> doctorate
..........................|
..........................| --> Vocational.

Tell me where the goal post for "basic education", out of those 8 I only need one word, what's so hard about it?

I grew up spoonfest (read propaganda) on how great philosophy is, until I'm old enough to see philosophy seems to demand a one-sided trust from me to believe that it's great, with no practical or realistic solution/action, I got so sick of it I left.

If you want me to buy into your philosophy, you'll have to give me some empirical evidence. And please, you're talking like I'm the one moving the goal post, you have not provided "one specific" example or actionable points throughout the entire course, all you do is giving general ideal after general idea. For the record, I have no problem agree with socialist that their "theory" sound good, so if that's what you're trying to say there is no need to debate. My problem is they never provide any substance to backup the theory. To repeat all of my questions so far, question that I needed answer to give "philosophy" the benefit of the doubt:

- Cite me one country that is true to socialism, long term sustainable and advance humanity progression. Because I see them all crashed and burnt.
- Tell me how would you regulate "free education" that open to "everyone" yet ensure it will not be abused.
- Last but not least, what level is your 'basic' education entail.

That's all.

[mrbadger]

- Cite me one country that is true to socialism, long term sustainable and advance humanity progression.

That's all.

There isn't one, just as there are no pure communist, monarchic or Capitalist societies. You should realise that. You can't ask such a narrowly defined question.

- Last but not least, what level is your 'basic' education entail.

That's all.

To me that would be enough to get you a job you are happy with. Note that getting a Doctorate does not mean getting a high paid job. It means it easier to get a job you like.

[Ketraar]

If you want me to buy into your philosophy

You dont need to buy into it, I'm not selling it. In fact philosophy is the debate of ideas, which is what I thought we were doing.

you'll have to give me some empirical evidence.

No I dont, sure it can be handy to prove a point, but I can make a theory of anything without any evidence whatsoever, hence it being a theory, Marx did it
Having theories and ideas, even without evidence, is how we usually advance our societies, we think of stuff and try it, then we adjust. If you are not willing theorise, no good idea will ever emerge.

But for the sake of ending this (as previously mentioned) pointless debate, I'll indulge in your request.

- Cite me one country that is true to socialism, long term sustainable and advance humanity progression. Because I see them all crashed and burnt.

I started my intervention by stating that there were never ANY countries based on a socialist system, despite many adopting it in the name. It served to counter the idea that "socialism does not work" based on how those non socialist countries failed at not being socialist at all.
I also mentioned socialism does not work in our current societies, but we are (slowly) getting there.

- Tell me how would you regulate "free education" that open to "everyone" yet ensure it will not be abused.

Well as I mentioned in previous post, its not just education. But it would be free to all. The limiting factor is as mentioned before based on skill.
But for most part I'm much more inclined to a a universal basic income, to put everyone above the poverty line and then just provide good and regulated services. You can read on this not so new idea here Unconditional Basic Income

- Last but not least, what level is your 'basic' education entail.

My personal understanding of education is not based on levels, in fact I'm part of a Social Organization for Education that aspires to introduce a different type of education, called Unschooling

MFG

Ketraar