Morals

Morals

Attached: 73EEF630-DFE3-4836-9987-58D8FE6F3FFD.jpg (960x720, 171.94K)

Attached: 8B3B2064-243A-4E5B-BD30-DA5DD5653D02.gif (480x305, 53.69K)

B

Child B, unless child C needed the flute to live.
Fuck child A.

>unless child C needed the flute to live
Why do you care if C lives or dies?

Whoever paid for it, and that sounds like B, until A buys it off of her.

And if people want A to have it, they should buy it off of B and give it to A. Same thing if they want C to have it.

C can go fuck themselves

For children A and B I'll do this the Solomon way.
>Tell them I'll cut the flute in half
>Each child gets half a flute
>First child who says that's stupid gets the flute

A, clearly
B and C get the fuck out

But B owns the flute. You're stealing from B to give it to A.

Flute, 100%, belongs to B. Their decision about what to do with it from there. Anything else is outright theft.

This is true, B wouldn't have made the flute for no reason

Irl child A would make child B rich and it would be completely fair. Child C can go die in a hole

This is a supply chain question. Were the materials gifted to the maker or sold? Either way, the materials changed hands with no formal agreement, it is not Child B's fault Child A did not know how to add value to materials. What motive did child A have to provide materials in the first place? Was there an agreement that they would split profits by some percentage after overhead was collected?

I think A is capitalism, B is socialism, C is communism.

No...

Without people like child B that
builds things , child
A wouldn't have the flute
(or whatever item it its)
to play in the first place .
Child A should buy the flute off a child B
to make sure that craftsman can make a living .
This way craftsman continue to produce items
that others can enjoy .
Child C should get a chance to see and hear the beautifully made flute being played so that
they want to improve their lot by becoming a tradesmen or musician .
Child A and Child B will wind up helping child C through taxation one way or another .
That small theft through taxation is better then
the complete theft of just giving the produced item to C .

C sounds like a nigger asking for gibs. Does B want to trade with A? A should end up with the flute but B ahould be compensated fairly for making it

Child B clearly, A is entitled, and C is playing the “oh look at me boo hoo”.

Child B put the effort in and created the damn thing

It's not even a matter of capitalism or communism, since it's not established how child B acquired the materials. Under communism, Child B could have simply been the one to utilize the means of production of which they all had equal access.

The point is that Child B made the flute. I don't know how anyone can justify taking away something someone made (especially a child), unless there was evidence they stole the materials from someone else to make it.

Rapier
Greatsword

I'm going to keep the fucking flute for myself. Then I'm going to lend it out to each of the children according to how much they're engaging with it compared to the rest of their lives.
>How Star Trek world dispensed with money

B put in the hard work and materials to build the flute, and besides its her property.

A is understandable and i would say she should at least be allowed try the flute with B's permission and nothing more.

C can fuck off with that guilt tripping shit

And even then, not compensating child B for adding value to the materials would be unfair.

lmao people owning the fruits of their labor is communist?

You can't read.

How can a flute be needed to live?

I'm keeping the goddamn flute, none of these little shits get it. Also I'm going to use it to molest Child A violently in the butthole while Child C who is elementary-school dating her watches and cries like a little broke-ass cuck. Child B will also cry but secretly wish I was banging her shitter with the flute but I'm not touching her because she looks Asian and probably has Coronavirus.

Topkek

He can make some money with it by playing it in his local pub to buy some bread.

But in the end, Child B should have it

He can't play it. Only A is able to play it.

Then C should fuck off

I'll tell them I'll give it to them on the condition that they show me putting the flute up their ass

well done

The one who's willing to do something dirty for me

I don't give a shit about these kids or their goddamn flute. Get off my property.

why did B make a flute? is it a consumable resource? is this some sort of flute-based transaction system? is there a demand for flutes? what is the capacity to make more flutes? what is the purpose of the flute in this scenario?

this nonsense over-simplifies a complex issue and makes people feel smarter than they are.

Attached: 94-71-135.png (500x600, 156.02K)

i'd break the flute so they learn a lesson not to fight over materialistic things

None of the options seem logical or moral in anyway, all three are based on some form of entitlement whether it’s based the ability to play, having made it, or circumstance. The real world doesn’t work this way, which is why this comparison is horseshit to begin with. People either own things by virtue of investment or possession, not entitlement. If I paid for the fuckin flute I own it regardless of whether I can play it or not. If I possess it, whether I found it or it was made available to me to use, I own it until it is either taken from me or I am finished using it. People who make things to be used by others are not entitled to that thing by virtue of having made it unless made for themselves, in which case they own it. And if a person can neither invest in or possess a thing, they are ass-out. This is what we should be teaching our kids, not that faggot shit where we decide who should have things based on entitlement.

>Child B created the damn thing

...why?

So, how long until you graduate from the university?

they will be shot for anti-communist behavior

C should take the flute by force.

>People who make things to be used by others are not entitled to that thing by virtue of having made it
Why?

Give me a situation where it would matter why

B is communism, you fucking niggers. The laborers keeping the fruit of their production.

Child B. Giving it to the others would make you a Communist
Spoiler alert, that's why their hair is red

Anyone who says anything other than B deserves the rope and will never contribute to anything of worth

But we do decide, you nigger. It's called the law. You can chimp out all you want about the law of the jungle, but at the end of the day you are still tax sheep one blue bullet away from being a statistic.

except B says that she provided the materials. Communism just gets magical mats from govt.

tell child B to make 2 more flutes u retarded faggot or else they will get my flute

Attached: eyedol.jpg (1032x638, 53.75K)

That makes no sense on a larger scale unless you mean for every single person to be involved in every single trade.

I think you're missing the point she made it personally it is by all rights hers (as noted by "I provided the materials"

She didnt make it for a factory or in contract with someone else or a corporation so by all rights she is the soul contributor and she owns the flute

Arguing against her having it is an argument for walking into someone's home taking something they've made and saying "I can use it better than you so I deserve it" or "I'm poorer and I want it"

Assuming Child B made the flute herself, you would have to first TAKE IT AWAY FROM HER before you could give it to someone else. If she made it and she wants to keep it, how can you take it away from her?

You realize he did that to figure out who of the women really gave birth to the child, not to peg the retard, right?

I totally agree with this post. The post I replied to did not seem to be saying this.

>Literally advocating for stealing from others
God you are a retard

A if she payed for it
B Otherwise
C can go fuck himself

C you faggots. A can go borrow one. B is the rich cunt who can make more. C can learn it and pull himself out of poverty. Fuck all you cancer fags.

if you made it, you get to fucking keep it, simple as that

I see nothing that says A paid for it, or was even offering to pay for it.

A. Fuck C, for obvious reasons, but its implied that B cant play the flute either, or at least not as well as A, and therefore will have less utility from that flute than A will. The flute then should go to the one whose utility will be the most maximized by it, which is A. Fuck B

To answer the question, the flute (or whatever other property you want to insert) goes to child A. Child A can maximize the utility of the property and has the greatest chance of generating revenue from it.

That revenue that is generated will help child B keep her job making the flute and the taxes from the sale/economic utility of the property will assist child C's lot in life.

If you frame this as something other than a question of property utilization of resources to solve the problem of all 3, then you will fail to answer it.

Child B. It's her decision to give it away since it's hers, she made it. Unless she works for a business that hired people to make them. In that situation she made an agreement to make them for the company for a salary. Then it's the business decision what it does with the flute.

Thief.

Everything you said is retarded. Congratulations, you’re an idiot.

>That revenue that is generated will help child B keep her job
How? You just stole the flute from B. How is any revenue going to B?

Nothing in the original premise says Child B made the flute because it's her job ... what child has a job anyway? There is no implied issue with taxes or generating revenue with the flute. For all you know Child A is just going to sit in her room and play it.

Stick to the facts as they are presented. You sound like a liberal Supreme Court Judge pulling stuff out of their ass that isn't specifically in the Constitution to justify their own politics. If you want to talk property utilization of resources, make up your own goddamn thread and re-write the problem as such.

bumbed about news about bernie today?

It's not implied, it's explicitly stated.
Implications are between the lines.

Implicit in my answer is that B will get paid for the flute by way of maximizing the utility.

This isn't about a flute. This paradox forces people to reconcile "morals" with economics.

Satan's trips checked

If you can read, you would know that you can own something by virtue of having made it if you made it for yourself. The logic you use assumes that the chink who made my phone owns it despite me having paid for it. The world doesn’t work that way, dude.

this stupid fucking paradox was taken from a book on economics, genius

Well that's jumping ahead a bit. Suppose B just wants to hang the flute on a shelf. B has no obligation to maximize the utility of the flute. You can't force B to sell.

Moral of the story, if you make it without any contract that specifies the ownership of the object, then it's yours and no one else's. Fuck anyone that tried to take it from you and fuck their reasons

What the fuck? I wasn't arguing with that point, hence it not being in my post. I was arguing with the point that I quoted.

I would advice child B to trade with child A I would be fucking child C's mom

Attached: me on the left.jpg (604x453, 40.05K)

>paradox

Attached: 1579056028100.jpg (625x625, 76.99K)

B clearly owns the flute.
Offer child A the option to rent the Flute of B
If B agrees, take a small part of the rental fee for B, and a small part of the profit A makes with using the flute, to support C.
Also tell C to use this support to learn how to either produce or play the flute himself, so he can support others struck by the same fate.

Oh look, our current system - social capitalism - works just fine.