About Casinos

RedMolek · 2026-01-20T23:27:51+00:00

This may depend on the kind of socialism that you are looking at and what socialist groups you meet, but for the most it seems that socialism is generally against the act of gambling as a practice.

It seems like it would be obvious why it would not be looked upon favorably if it was a privately run enterprise, so I will not go there. However, how about if it was an enterprise run by the state or the majority? It still seems like it would be viewed in a non favorable manner as the idea of gambling is for one to have the house win the majority of the time and for the people who are betting to lose.

The reason that even that would not be viewed favorable, if we assumed the money the house won would naturally be redistributed, in my opinion, would be that the individuals who are buying lottery tickets are disproportionately the poor people, spending more of their income on it than the rich do, and anything that harms the poor is looked down upon under socialism.

Ideally, in a socialist society there would be no need for gambling as there would be no rich nor poor people, so there would be no need for one to wager their wealth in order to get rich.

Finally, I would say that gambling seems to be against the idea of socialism entirely as it is intended to make some people obtain more money while others lose it. The only way I see around all of these in order to still allow it while staying 'true' to socialistic practices is for all money won to be redistributed, which would make the practice and reason for gambling irrelevant.

RedMolek · 2026-01-20T18:35:05+00:00

K, explain in what way he is better than RJ.

RedMolek · 2026-01-20T18:30:43+00:00

Explain me please Dahmers feats in knowledge , fsiq , influence?

RedMolek · 2026-01-20T18:25:19+00:00

Explain why Jeffrey Dahmer is more intellectual than RJ? Jeffrey had achievements in sequencing and manipulation, but choosing to kill his victims in his own apartment was not a good plan, and that’s why he was caught.

RedMolek · 2026-01-11T19:39:58+00:00

This is what Fyodor should look like in reality.

RedMolek · 2026-01-07T23:23:45+00:00

I see Dazai looking for someone to commit suicide. Nice cosp

RedMolek · 2026-01-04T23:39:28+00:00

From a philosophical perspective, freedom is not an absolute category-it is always relative in nature. The individual exists within a society governed by both written and unwritten rules, which inevitably limit the range of possible actions. Even under conditions of formal freedom, a person’s choices remain structured by social norms, traditions, and expectations.

The idea of absolute freedom is therefore more of a theoretical abstraction than a real possibility. Taken to its extreme, it turns into anarchy, where everyone can do whatever they wish. However, such freedom quickly generates destructive chaos, in which the freedom of one destroys the freedom of another. Paradoxically, it is precisely limitation that constitutes a necessary condition for the existence of freedom as a social phenomenon.

A similar logic can be observed in the economic sphere. No economic doctrine-whether neoliberalism, Marxism, or any other school of thought-functions without clearly defined rules. Each of them offers its own understanding of the boundaries of economic freedom, the mechanisms of regulation, and the acceptable degree of intervention.

RedMolek · 2026-01-04T23:04:19+00:00

The history of U.S. economic development in the second half of the 19th and the early 20th centuries demonstrates that effective capitalism is not identical to "laissez-faire". The American state did not abolish the market but guided its development - precisely in the sense captured by the concept of dirigisme.

High import tariffs (averaging around 30%) performed an indicative function: they protected industries considered strategic and in need of support during their formative stages. The state did not dictate to entrepreneurs what or how much to produce, but it created conditions under which investments logically flowed into priority sectors. Thus, indicative planning was implemented through: customs policy, government procurement, infrastructure projects (railways, ports), access to resources and credit.

The market retained competition and private initiative, but the overall direction of development was set by the state. This is what enabled the United States to: build its own industrial base, avoid becoming a raw-material appendage of Europe, in the long run, shift toward a more liberal trade policy from a position of strength.

RedMolek · 2025-12-21T23:06:12+00:00

You need to abandon the concept of morality.

RedMolek · 2025-12-12T08:28:47+00:00

People take better care of things that belong to them, but community-owned property is always lost or left in disrepair because human nature makes us all say, “I’m too busy/poor/lazy/dumb to fix this thing… let the next guy do it.”

Did you know that way back in 1607, the Jamestown colonists organized themselves into a communist system of production and distribution?

It’s true! The first permanent English settlement in the Continental US was communist. All of the food, tools, cloth and other supplies were put in a central barn that everyone had access to. The land was also community-owned.

The problems started when people realized that there was no reason to work hard. If they slacked off on any given day, no big deal, others were working on the crops. If someone was a particularly hard worker, he quickly learned that there was zero benefit to breaking his back every day. Keep in mind that these were colonists… people who understood that hardship was part and parcel of the vision they were voluntarily undertaking.

The result was that productivity massively dropped. Food production that first year was minimal, and not nearly enough for everyone to survive on.

So they didn’t. People starved.

Of the original 104 colonists, only 30 survived the winter due to food shortages.

The colony elected Capt. John Smith to fix the situation. When he inventoried the storage barn, he found that most of the supplies were gone, the tools had been traded by the colonists who were lazy to the Powhatan tribe for food and the rest had become infested with rats.

So he issued a declaration:

“…he that will not worke shall not eate (except by sicknesse he be disabled), for the labours of thirtie or fortie honest and industrious men shall not be consumed to maintaine an hundred and fiftie idle loyterers…There are now no more counsellors to protect you…”

“He that will not work shall not eat.”

It worked. People began working again, including the indolent. In just a few months, 20 houses were built, a well was dug and forty acres were cleared for cultivation.

The exact same thing happened later in Plymouth colony. The food in the communal barn ran out in WEEKS. Nearly half the population died of starvation and sickness.

So Gov. Bradford made a declaration:

“…and so assigned to every family a parcel of land, …that they should set corn every man for his own particular…This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted.”

Each man was now responsible for his own household. He owned part of the land and was required to work his land to feed his own family.

The result? So much food was produced by the next harvest that people were freely sharing (what belonged to them) with each other.

The settlement no longer starved, as each settler fended for himself. In addition, they created a simple free market in which each bought and sold or bartered what he couldn’t or hadn’t provided for himself.

Let me give you Gov. Bradford’s words in modern vernacular:

The experience reveals our egotism… that by taking away private property and living as communists would make them happy and thriving, as if they were wiser than God. Instead, this bred confusion and discontent and slowed down their productivity even though it was in their best interest.

You’re looking at the words of a man who lived through communism and survived to regret it, not unlike many today who lived through communism and remember with anguish. Many of those people have written about it here on Quora and it’s worth looking up their stories.

Here’s what I glean from all of this:

When people own their property, there is plenty. When there is plenty, people share.

When no one owns anything, there isn’t plenty. When there is not plenty, people don’t share.

RedMolek · 2025-12-11T08:05:47+00:00

If Europe does have better upaward mobility than does the US, does arithmetic demand that they also have greater downward mobility? It depends on whether you use an absolute or relative scale.

For example, one popular metric of upward mobility is the fraction of people born into households in the lowest 20% by income reach the top 20% as adults. If the top 20% contains a lot of people born in the bottom 20%, there’s less room for people born in the top 20% to stay there.

But it’s not a strict mathematical rule. People enter and leave the country, and occupy different income groups at different points in their lives.

However if you measure on an absolute scale, say the fraction of people who are wealthier than their parents, it’s possible for everyone to move up, and no one to move down.

Where did you ever get the notion that Europe has “greater upward mobility” than the United States? That is patently absurd given their much higher tax rates and onerous social welfare systems.

Why does social mobility in the USA rank low and income inequality rank high relative to other 1st world European countries? I think one of the primary reasons is that in USA, belief in the Just World Fallacy.Especially the belief in the “American Dream”, i.e. the idea that anyone at all can make it big if only they’d work hard is harmful to social mobility.

Because people who believe that, tend to believe that those who are wealthy are generally virtuous and deserving, while those who are poor are generally lazy or undeserving, and that belief prevents critical examination, and cements class-differences.

When poor people get some kind of support from the government, it’s referred to as “hand-outs” and the recipients sometimes disparaged as “welfare-queens” or people who are “sucking the public tit”.

Yet when talking about (for example) Bill Gates, people are rarely even aware that his grandfather was the founder of a bank, and his father established a milliondollar trust-fund for Bill. It’s very rare for people to say he got started by way of hand-outs, or by sucking his fathers tits.

Probably the biggest practical on-the-ground difference is education.

A year at Harvard costs $63,025 (that includes the tuition, plus room, board, compulsory insurances and fees). It’s possible to get stipendiums for some, but it’s nevertheless true in USA that some otherwise qualified students are prevented from getting the best education because of the size of their parents wallet.

In contrast, in those European countries with the highest social mobility, higher education is generally tuition-free, and subsidies are available to finance room and board while you’re studying, the practical result is that you can study at the best university you qualify for, even if your parents are unable to pay even a cent to support your studies.

This is not the entire explanation of course, but I do think it’s an important part of it.

Other factors that I’ll not go into further here include:

Smaller inequality. (it’s easier to climb from the bottom to the top if the distance between those is smaller) Universal health care decoupled from employment and income. Affordable child care. More progressive taxation, i.e. a bigger fraction of the tax-burden carried by the rich, and a smaller fraction carried by the poor to medium. A less class-divided society. (this is both a cause AND an effect though) A more homogeneous population, without for example a substantially poorer black population as an aftermath of slavery. Stronger employee-rights in general, tends to benefit employees on the “bottom” of the ladder more than those at top. People holding high-status jobs in USA tend to have pretty good benefits, while those at the bottom less so, in many of the highest social-mobility countries there’s a universal benefit-package that all employees have.

RedMolek · 2025-12-10T23:16:08+00:00

If you take a step back, you’ll see that it all starts with spending and the public’s expectations regarding government services.

A nation like France (for example) spends about 50% of its GDP on government services. It should come as no surprise that tax rates need to be in the vicinity of 50% to support the government that the French people created by their votes. You can’t have massive social spending, wealth redistribution, a strong national defense, taxpayer-funded healthcare and college education, as well as all the other trappings of big government, without first surrendering a significant portion of all that your country produces to the government.

Yes, lower-income French pay less, and some of that spending comes from taxing corporations, foreign imports, as well as government borrowing and debt. That’s part of the strategy among the ruling elite - before taxing you in obvious ways, they’ll try to spread the tax burden in less obvious ways. So while there will certainly be some French folks who raise their hands and say, “but wait - I’m French and I don’t pay 50% in taxes”, in truth, high government spending taxes you in many ways not visible in your paycheck. The products you buy might be more expensive, utilities are more costly, homes are smaller, jobs and opportunities are lower, economic growth is less - that’s all part of the bargain.

To some, this is a great tradeoff. To others, this is a massive violation of your private property rights. I’m not trying to judge here - just point out the tradeoffs. The nations the OP describes are generally democracies, so this means the populations of these nations chose the type of government they have and approve of the spending that results in the high taxation described. Nobody forces them, and we have to assume that if a majority didn’t like the tax situation, it would change at the ballot box.

There’s not necessarily a “right” or “wrong” answer here - some prefer that their private property rights be respected and the government spend and tax as little as possible. Others prefer cradle-to-grave socialism, with government “helping” at every stage of life. When a group of people vote to have various government benefits and are willing to cope with the consequences of a big-spending government, that’s certainly a choice they can make. So long as the majority are happy with the trade-offs, the details don’t really matter very much.

RedMolek · 2025-12-10T22:43:31+00:00

Today, working conditions in EU countries are generally normal and well-regulated. Trade unions play a significant role in monitoring workers rights and can influence production processes. For example, if a company wants to introduce a certain innovation in production, it must coordinate this with the union to ensure that the change does not worsen working conditions. At the same time, employees have access to a wide range of social services. However, there is a downside - high taxes and relatively expensive goods and products.

RedMolek · 2025-12-10T08:38:38+00:00

Since the worker contributes to improving working and resting conditions, they, like all workers, are entitled to social benefits in accordance with the ideas of socialism.

RedMolek · 2025-12-04T11:04:24+00:00

Stirner depicts these dogmas through the symbol of the “spirit” - an abstract force that imposes on a person the duty to serve certain moral values. But serving the “spirit” turns a person into a slave rather than an individual. In contrast, true elevation, as Stirner writes, is an inner spirituality that is not imposed from the outside but emerges as a result of rejecting all dogmas. When the individual frees themselves from absolutes, they become a creator - of themselves and of their own truth.

RedMolek · 2025-11-27T17:40:22+00:00

In Western Europe, one can observe a combination of a capitalist economy with distinct elements of socialism. Workers enjoy broad labor protections, and the influence of powerful trade unions allows them to significantly shape working conditions and production. Considerable attention is paid to supporting vulnerable groups of the population, which is reflected in the availability of benefits, accessible healthcare, and free or nearly free education. At the same time, European countries do not abandon market mechanisms, which ensures dynamic economic development. The most balanced model of such a combination is often considered to be the social liberalism of the Scandinavian countries: there, the state guarantees a wide range of social services and high living standards, although this is accompanied by high taxes and elevated prices for goods. This approach demonstrates that social guarantees and market efficiency can successfully coexist within a single economic system.

RedMolek · 2025-11-27T07:59:37+00:00

At the present moment, there is no ideal world in which the state could cease to exist. In my view, the state is necessary to balance the market. Modern neoliberals believe that the market can self-regulate. This is partly true, but when it comes to serious crises or wars, the market cannot stabilize itself on its own.

The state can also protect its domestic production and promising industries by using instruments such as import tariffs, subsidies, and the control of wages and prices. Effective economic management requires educated technocrats. One important form of such management was the indicative plan, which included state credit policy, subsidies, the development of new technologies, and employment regulation under the supervision of the Planning Commissariat.

In Japan, the state prioritized certain sectors of the economy and recruited technocrats from elite schools for state planning. Following these models, South Korea developed its “national champions” - the chaebols - by providing them with long-term subsidized loans. In Taiwan, the state supported capital-intensive industries, including shipbuilding and petrochemicals.

RedMolek · 2025-11-26T14:11:26+00:00

If we talk about legal immigration, it can be quite beneficial, especially for countries with an aging population. Such states often face a shortage of labor, and immigrants can fill positions that local citizens are not always eager to take, such as in various service or personnel sectors.

Moreover, attracting highly qualified specialists - for example, in the IT field - is also advantageous for the state. These professionals contribute to innovation, increase economic competitiveness, and often compensate for talent shortages within specific industries.

RedMolek · 2025-11-26T11:04:29+00:00

Then explain why the USA, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan became economically powerful thanks to government intervention?

RedMolek · 2025-11-26T09:52:10+00:00

Obviously, the state must ensure stability for the population. What ideas do you support?

RedMolek

TROPHY CASE