/lit/ - Literature

B>A>C

B, but first i would let a crowd gather and voice their opinions, so i could place anyone advocating for A or C into a camp

B=A>C

>>14203301
Might Makes Right is always a defense of the exact status quo, whatever it may be. Pretty boring.

>>14203301
Who is this broke ass Child C that wandered into this situation? Obviously none of them because they are demons plaguing the protagonist's fractured psyche. Keep the damn flute for yourself, you sad lunatic

>>14203301
B>A>C unless the flute _needs_ to be played right now, then A>B>C

>>14203301
>Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property. I do not demand any right, therefore I need not recognize any either. What I can get by force I get by force, and what I do not get by force I have no right to, nor do I give myself airs, or consolation, with my imprescriptible right.

>Therefore, the flute is -mine-.

Your premise is correct, but your conclusion is flawed, you scrawny nerd.

>>14203301
Child A should provide something of worth to B such that she would consent to the transaction. C should get a job.

>>14203301
A>B>C

A is most likely to put the flute to proper use. Otherwise, what is the point of the flute?

B understandably wants to lay claim to the flute, however, they’ve fulfilled their role in this experiment by producing the flute. Giving them the flute would be a bit of a waste.

C has no justification for flute ownership. He neither created it nor can he put it to use. Giving the flute to C would render the flute useless and the result is no music nor reward for anyone.

B and C would both be better off surrendering the flute to A and enjoying the music.

>>14203318
Not really. It can also be used to defend the direction of current change.

A

Every argument for B is based on "what if/B has the option" cope or muh rights tier shit.

>>14203318
>It would be foolish to assert that there is no power above mine. Only the attitude that I take toward it will be quite another than that of the religious age: I shall be the enemy of - every higher power.
But to me no majesty, nothing sacred, is a limit; nothing that I know how to overpower. Only that which I cannot overpower still limits my might; and I of limited might am temporarily a limited I, not limited by the might outside me, but limited by my own still deficient might, by my own impotence.

>>14203343
Child A already knows how to play the flute and could easily use any other flute to play with. Child B, having produced the flute, could use the fruits of her own labor to learn another skill.

I'll take the flute and rape the kids.

First and foremost, what can they give me in exchange for the flute? The flute is in my control, so I can just keep it, or trade it. Why do kids think they should get it?

>>14203352
The kids are you - the police find you in the parking lot of an Applebee's with a broken spine after trying to bend over the hood of a Prius trying to fuck yourself

>>14203346
If the change succeeds, it is therefore legitimate, because it was stronger. If the change fails, the countervailing force is legitimate, since it was stronger. Oh look, in either case the resulting status quo is again legitimized.
>>14203348
Imagine being overpowered by a mosquito bite LOL

>>14203358
a pretty based way to go desu senpai

>>14203352
absolutely based

>>14203301
A: fascism
B: capitalism
C: socialism

>>14203375
I think we just have different notion of the status quo.

>>14203381
D: egoism

>>14203381
They are all just socialism, children can't have rights as they are not human beings.

>>14203408
I'd let her take my flute anyday if you know what I mean heh

Whoever can take it deeper

>>14203301
Child B has absolute right to the flute under both Anglo Capitalism and Marxism. Not only did he/she/they/it provide the labor but has original ownership of all materials and the the property rights thereunto.

All other considerations are secondary. There is nothing stopping children A and C from learning how to make a flute. Now is there anything stopping Child B from producing two more flutes of her own volition and trading them to the other children? With Child A she could trade the second flute she produces for lessons on how to play the flute. Child C has nothing of value to trade but it's labor so she could trade her labor for the knowledge to make flutes and aquire the resources to do so in exchange for a return of product flutes to child B.

So I would request of child B that she teach Child C the knowledge of flute building in exchange Child C will produce two flutes, on for them each. As the originator of this scheme for greater public good I will furnish the materials required for this transaction. Child C will then have a Flute and the knowledge of flute making, and the option of producing another in exchange for Child As knowledge of playing the flute. Child B will have a second flute to trade with Child A in exchange for the knowledge of how to play the flute.

At the end of these trades:
Child A has a Flute and the ability to play it.
Child B has a Flute and the ability to play it and the ability to produce more.
Child C has a Flute and the ability to produce more.

Because the original question places the role of justice maker in my hands I therefore have the responsibility to provide all parties with the option to persue this vision of social justice. It is also my responsibility to provide the resources to make it possible. More so if I insist that Child A, B, and C preform these roles. However I believe it would be inappropriate and unjust to require by compulsory method any party to preform any of these trades.

It is better to create an environment that allows everyone to choose to be productive and actively engaged in trade of thier skills and resources for other skills and resources and offers them rewards for doing so. That results in the greatest good for all.

>>14203389
Mine is "whatever is the case at any given moment", and whatever is the case right now (e.g. who is in power, which political and economic system is dominant, which morality most people subscribe to) has necessarily triumphed over all alternatives, else it wouldn't be the case.
Pure "might makes right" can never criticize, because it doesn't have an "ought". It would have to separate legitimate from illegitimate might.

>>14203349
It doesn’t matter. The most optimal decision to ensure music is made is to give it to A. Even in purely economic terms, the opportunity cost for producing the flute that Child B incurs is a sunk cost and shouldn’t dictate future decision making. You’re also implying that it is known that an alternative flute exists and that is not known. I would propose that if such an alternative flute exists, B would be equally capable of acquiring it. The only way to ensure the flute is used and music produced is to give the flute to A. Any other argument is rooted in “fruits of their labor” or “charity” arguments, both of which are mere sentimentality and not rational arguments.

Now that I control the flutes of this pathetic world, I give them to C in exchange for their undying fealty to me.

>>14203301
C > A > B

>>14203375
>It is not certain if this fatal sickness , which was the only serious one of his life, was brought on by the sting of a poisonous fly, as has
been asserted.

>When the carbuncle had already attained the size of a hand, he went to a doctor to be treated. The doctor immediately ascertained a high fever -in the form of a nervous fever- yet under his instructions the
sickness took a favorable course, so that a clear pustular surface
formed, the fever disappeared, and his appetite returned.

>Unfortunately the doctor treating him went away and his care had to be placed in other hands. Probably as a consequence of a fault in
his diet, perhaps also through the new and incorrect treatment, the fever came back and quickly rose high, so that fourteen days later
death occurred.

>The original tumor had spread to other parts of his body, the pus was filled with blood, and death followed on 25 June as a consequence
of the "nervous fever" caused by the discharge of pus.

>Max Stimer died of a "common tumor" on 25 June 1856, in his dwelling, toward
evening, aged 49 years and 8 months.

>>14203447
>he has to pay for the undying fealty of CHILDREN

LMAO

>>14203301
Undoubtedly B, also fuck the other 2 leech niggas

The flute belongs to child B. It doesn’t matter at all whether B can play it, even if A can. C needs to stop bitching. In this scenario, we can’t even be sure B has any desire to play the flute, as it could just be a declaration piece.

>>14203439
Also I reject entirely the notion that at any point I as the adult/government/whatever have the right to make this decision about child B's actual property. Forgot to state that.

>>14203467
imagine being you

>>14203301

Might makes right is one of the worst non-arguments there is.

>>14203460
>>14203447
look at how much these bitches want his flute
doesn't have to give them SHIT

>>14203444
You are precluding child B's option and potential to learn to play the flute. It may be that child A plays the flute with only an average skill. While Child B has shown great dedication and passion for the instrument by crafting one and may learn to play it with the same excellence she used in creating it. Under your system you end up with only one shitty flute player and a dispossessed flute owner who wants to kill her. Even your goal of having flute music is not well served. The goal should be the production of more flutes and more flute players.

>>14203301
Obviously A. THE FLUTE MUST FULFILL ITS TELOS.

>>14203301
anyone saying B is bluepilled and not comprehending labor in terms of the whole community

>>14203301
I would keep the flute safe long enough to teach Child B how to defend herself and her property from Child A, Child C, and adults who would violate natural human law like property rights and the value of labor. The other two children are then welcome to try thier degenerate schemes again.

>>14203517
Cringe
>>14203524
Based

>>14203301
Force B to teach C and A how to make flutes, force A to teach B and C how to play, force C to play on the streets to earn money of which he should give 33% each to A and B for the next 5 years, and if he ever becomes materially rich(over 1million), he should give the other 2 girls 10% of his money.

>>14203517
B is the only member of the whole community that preformed any labor at all. Unless you are assuming something.not stated in the facts of the question for example child A is too lazy to learn to make a flute and Child C is unable to learn. The question only differentiates that child C is poor. But I have knees for you, if Child A can't buy a flute, and Child B had to make one herself, all these kids are poor as shit. This grouping is not large enough to apply Marxist bc values as this is purely a matter of personal inter relationship management. The entire question is this flawed.

>>14203460
>>14203488 (nice)
"Those who have youth on their side control the future." — Adolphin "Porn is bad mkay" Harlem

>>14203301
I would break the flute

>>14203450
/thread

>>14203570
i like your style

>>14203507
Your use of words like passion and dedication validated my point about sentimentality. Under my system you end up with a flute, one flute player, and some music. Under yours you end up with a flute and you may or may not end up with a flute player and some music. Our fundamental disagreement is in objective. You creation and distribution of flutes the purpose of the exercise. I see the creation of music as the purpose.

>>14203301
I break the gotdamn flute in half

>>14203301
>Three children are fighting over a flute
>who do you give it to
It's not mine to give. Let them fight. They will become either tougher in combat, or more apt to use discussion for resolution. Perhaps after the flute had eventually broken while fighting for it, and a new one must be wrought, they could all share and participate in each others engagement of what a flute is defined by, until they comprehend the necessity of each others parts and in turn develop their own proficience and style as an autonomous but also willing collaborator of flute mastery everywhere. Perhaps one will kill the other two off and do the same regardless, until someone else does the same to him of course. Suppose I give it to each one in a seperate dimension? I'm fairly confident my authority would only offset or delay the above stated implications upon each and all either way.

>Tl;dr kys tard

>>14203586
To be clear though, I’m not advocating forcible redistribution of the flute to A. I specifically said B should surrender the flute to A, not that I would force him to surrender. If the goal is music, why would we have producers playing and players producing. I suggest it would be optimal to have producers produce so that players may play. C should offer what he’s able to assist B or be otherwise rejected altogether.

>>14203547
what

>>14203524
imagine taking locke seriously

>>14203301
The flute belongs to child B, giving it to anyone else without B's permission is theft by definition. B is morally justified in resisting this theft by any means necessary.

>>14203612
Why does the goal have to be immediate music. If B was able to create the flute, she must obviously understand the mechanics of the flute. Give her time and she will be able to produce music aswell. And even if she won't she should not surrender it. It is her property by any measures and should do with as she please. If she wants to use it as a decoration, it is her right. No goal can be set that in any way diminishes her choice.

>>14203612
>not that I would force him to surrender.
So then under your system there would be zero flute players because Child Bz unless they were retarded, would not just give away her flute. So your system relies on a universe where a child is so retard that they give up something that required then to be very gifted and intelligent to craft in the first place.
>InB4 but not special brand of universe where retarded children can somehow make flutes.

Simply giving the flute to someone doesn't stop them from fighting over it. They already think they are all entitled to it.

Clearly I would give it to the person who made it, and at first B would be happy. But eventually A would try to exchange something for it while giving her a bad deal, or C would try to utilize the government and the system to his advantage and state on his documents how poor he is and eventually be allocated the flute because of property redistributions.

Clearly the answer is B, but it doesn't solve the long-term problems at hand. :3

>>14203629
child B is an uppity faggot who should be told his flute is a peice of shit and that he should build a real instrument like a fucking guitar along with a slap upside the head, child A should be told their faggot flute music is bad and they should feel bad for anyone thinking they like their shit noise making abilities, child C needs a fucking backhand and told to stop pining after other peoples shit like a faggot and go find their own shit to play with, and another slap for pretending to be morally superior for being a lazy jealous candyass

>>14203629
Given that you seem to have the ability to decide ownership, the flute belongs to you; you can choose who to bestow it to, if any.
Don't know why you got brought in on this question, but here we are

>>14203629
>>14203637
It should be given a serial number after confiscation from the fed because B couldn't afford to pay back the fiat loan required for the tools and materials already monopolized to construct the flute, due to the fact she couldn't find a market (as flute makers dont fuck with the players like that) playing for audiences with her shit skills.

>>14203439
>>14203586
This is my system just for the record. In my system we end up with three flutes, two flute players, and two flute makers. In your system we end up with one flute player and one flute maker and vast quantity of lost opportunity.

>>14203629
No one ever said B owned it though. They simply made it. Possibly for (You) who will then give the flute to a child once you answer the damn question.
Children don't have rights to ownership anyway, well they shouldn't, rather.

>>14203665
Meaning at some point, you stole B's flute? :3

>>14203301
lots of people unduly weighing B in this thread. your notions of 'right' and property law are contingent on liberal philosophy which has only been around for the last few hundred years. if you actually go and look at studies on children's moral intuitions you'll see they'll always either give to someone like A or C, but never B

>>14203680
It says that child be provided the materials for the flute as well as make it. Not just "simply make it".
Even under your argument that children don't own things, than those materials were the property of her parents and the resulting artifacts and products therein as well. So it would still be theft of the property of Child B's parents if they had allocated that property for her use.

>>14203688
Hey, I'm not making any claims, I'm just a consultant!
B made a flute, now I decide what's done with it.
Maybe I have whole sweatshops of little Asian girls making flutes haha IMAGINE
The commies and muh rights ppl should really be asking why I'm here haha

>>14203704
Okay then you were given the flute by child b's parents

>>14203693
>unironically making the point that leftists are like children

>>14203301
Anything but C
I fucking HATE when poor people complain that they deserve stuff for being poor. Fuck them

>>14203738
yea since children of that age are on average less ideologically conditioned than adults

I'm giving them all the flute in five minute intervals.

I think that it depends on the situation. If child be was assigned to make the flute by someone else in turn for a reward (or payment) the flute is not her's. However if she made the flute on her own then it is her property therefore she shouldn't have it taken from her. If the flute was made for a reward and it is not her personal property then A should get the flute as B already received payment for her labor. Child C shouldn't get the flute. Maybe he should make one like B did.

>>14203751
> ;)

C, because it's the only male and females are incapable of creating worth.

>>14203680
She provided the material as well. So unless she was contracted to make the flute, it is her property.

>>14203301
C = A > B = C

>>14203570
>I would break the flute

>>14203804
C has higher priority than himself?

>>14203749
do they learn anything when they encounter children from another tribe who take the flute from them and call them faggots?

>>14203804
In other words, A should utilise it, B should be compensated and C should not be disregarded because of his lack to play or to make.

>>14203817
no but there is no other way I could formulate that conveniently, that being C being equal to both A and B despite his lack of means to produce

If poor:
C
If worker:
B
If enjoyer of music:
A
simple as

>>14203818
>conflating justified with unjustified redistribution and then calling both 'theft'

>>14203637
Again, these appeals to rights are rooted in nothing other than sentimentality, which by itself isn’t implicitly rational. The goal is to create music because that’s what flutes are generally for. You could argue the flute is just for B’s decoration, but from a sentimental point of view that’s pretty selfish of B to claim that it’s purpose since that also implies the flutes only person is it’s relevance to them and them only. It’s purpose from the only non-subjective point of view is to create music which all can enjoy and in the scenario provided only A is capable of producing it with any certainty. All other scenarios leave at least 2 people with no function and no benefit.

>>14203301
>you do not get eternal life by force therefore you have no right to it
>mfw the archons destroy themselves

>>14203847
i like your take

>>14203837
>implying that it belongs to one of the 3 because they were fighting for it first

>>14203795
She made the fucking flute with her materials, but then gave it to you to decide what to do with it. There's even a contract and everything, the flute is now legally yours and as per the contract you must also answer the question and give it to one of them based on their arguments. It's not her property anymore.
Also you didn't pay her she made it for the sake of the experiment. Though she would still like the flute herself.

I tell Child B to teach the other two how to make flutes, give the flute to them, and then tell A and C to make their own. Surely children aren't doing metallurgy so it's obviously some wooden/reed flute.

>>14203740
Anything but B
I fucking HATE when rich people complain that they deserve stuff for being rich. Fuck them

>>14203847
>claims the goal is to create music and property rights have nothing to do with it
>accuses others of sentimentality

>>14203847
B could have created the flute to spite A or to gain control over A and C and sexually punish them like the whore she is

>>14203651
I said that B should surrender the flute to A so it implies they do willingly.

>>14203877
true
even worse because everyone ITT is taking a bunch of kids' words at face value when the way they frame their position could potentially provide a benefit
e.g. A could possibly not know how to play better than the others, or could play only marginally better (i.e. just can read sheet music), B could have made a really shitty flute, quality is never mentioned, xhe could have received assistance from an unmentioned party/their equipment, C could be a bullshitter
>>14203882
>There's a contract
>

>You must answer the question
>

>>14203894
So are you implying the purpose of the flute is to exist as property? What other objective purpose would it have?

>>14203301
Tell them that i will break the flute in three pieces and give one to each of them. The one who objects and forfeits their third of the flute truly values the flute and deserves it

t. sancho panza

>>14203973
solomon did it first

>>14203677
Your solution implies the capability for the production of a second flute, which if true is valid, but that’s not assumed in the given scenario.

>>14203951
i am implying that your daydreams as to what you could hypothetically do with someone else's shit are not relevant unless you're prepared to face the consequences of stealing it

>>14203301
Take it for myself because everything is my property.

>>14203980
>solomon did it first
>there is nothing new under the sun
pick one

>>14204009
alright I pick solomon did it first

>>14203987
Well since the creator of the question decided to give me God like powers over the property rights of child B, I will have the ability to furnish the materials for more flutes.

>>14203951
It exists BECAUSE it was created by it's creator. It is the property of it's creator. It exists for whatever reason it's creator decides it should exist. All else is sentimentalist notionist masturbatory fluff.

>>14203992
The question implies you have the choice who to give it to. There’s no theft implied whatsoever.

>>14204050
That’s still an assumption not given in the scenario.

>>14204065
So do you believe your sole purpose in life is whatever your mother had in mind when she conceived you then?

>>14204071
child B never made another flute after that. she turned her talents to manufacturing AR-15s and gadsen flags

>>14203725
Exactly nowhere in the original question does it state that the flute was ever surrendered to you willingly.

Three children are fighting over a flute that one of them has crafted with her own materials. If you are going to make an assumption based on that statement it would be that the parent of child b showed up out of the blue and "gave" you the flute. That is a bizzare and absurd assumption. The most reasonable assumption is that flute is physically in the presence of the children and you took possession at that point.

You assume they were fighting over a hypothetical flute that was then delivered to you by the parents. You know how dumb that sounds.

>>14203301

>>14204090
People=wood

Great argument. People are the creators of both objects and other people. They have property rights over the property they create and legal responsibility for the people they create. Try sticking to this reality. Absurdum arguments went out of fashion a long time ago. There are zero legal or philosophical principles that equate people with property that exists without a lot of laughter by all who hear them.

>>14204110
Dibs

>>14204110
Thats a recorder dude

lmao why do I have the flute? fuck these kids, its mine now

>>14204119
>giving me the flute would improve my lot in life immeasurably
How so? You're just gonna get bored of it. It's a flute, not a fucking snowglobe, it has a purpose.

Get A to pay B for the flute then tax both of them to send C to school to learn a trade.

Isn't B the only marxist answer? Why is everyone saying C is? B is the only one who provided the labor, if anyone else got the flute it would be exploitation.

>>14203891

Karl would definitely respond B tho.

>>14204073
As is the assumption that it is ever ok to deprive someone of thier legally created hand crafted artifacts that are the product of thier labor. The actual question Is "Who would you give the flute too?" Which assumes that I have such authority. Well if I have the authority to give a child b a finished flute that child b made, then I would also have the authority to give them raw materials. Child B didn't create the raw materials she aquired them within the confines of the question as part of her providing the materials". Therefore within the question exists the possibility that more flutes and more raw materials will exist for more creative acts by any and all parties.

>>14204130
"Therecorderis awoodwindmusical instrumentin the group known asinternal duct flutes—flutes with awhistlemouthpiece, also known asfipple flutes."
t. Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
>>14204160
read ta thread, marxist answer is solidarity amongst b's to overthrow (you), who somehow decides where the flute is going

>>14204160
No, it's a common misreading of Marx. Marx doesn't think exploitation is what's wrong with capitalism per se, rather he thinks commodity-production (i.e., exchange value) is what's wrong with it

>>14204171
Proudhon and Ricardo would, not Marx though. Read Critique of the Gotha Programme, since clearly you lost the point of Capital.

>>14204119
I’m not implying they’re the same. I asked the question because you seemed to be, but we agree on as much that they’re not.

The argument I’m trying to present is that you’re proposing that the purpose of the flute exists solely on its relation to how it was created, but there’s logical basis for that argument.

You’re keep saying “people have rights”, it that’s an emotional argument at best. It’s only objective in the sense that yes, our governments do preserve that, but the only arguments as to why are purely emotional. There’s no explicitly objective or rational argument as to why an individual has a sole right to property. In fact, it’s inherently subjective because you’re implying the purpose of the object exist only in relation to the purpose its creator wants it to have. Your argument is founded on the notion that an individual has a human right to what he creates, but you still haven’t validated that with something other than emotional appeal or the implied assumption that were only operated within the context of government enforced property rights, which in and of themselves aren’t validated by rational argument nor are they implied in OP’s scenario.

>>14204181

GTFO!

Exploitation is exactly what Marx thinks is wrong with capitalism. Commodity Production =/= Exchange Value. Goddamit, you need to read Capital .

>>14204176
This argument relies on the force of law though, which in and of itself is not an explicitly rational argument. The law exists, but that’s not to say it’s inherently rational or logical nor does that mean the law is founded upon on anything other than sentimentality. I’m not even proposing that sentimentality isn’t a valid justification, only that it is in fact, the justification.

>>14204184
>Critique of the Gotha Programme
This has nothing to do with what you're talking about. How is taking labor from the working class Marxian?

>>14203301
This is a fixed version since a lot of anons seemed to not have read the OP

>>14203847
Or maybe the goal of creating the flute was for B to sell it for a profit.

>>14203301
A should buy the flute from B, C is a useless vagabond.

>>14204191
People create emotions, and rights, and flutes, and governments, and arguments for that matter. There is nothing that is not the product of a creator. All our conceptions of all these things are creations, rational, emotional, intellectual, artistic, spiritual. If you want to give priority to one of these over the other, than good luck. But there is absolutely no way that I will accept that a piece of wood at any point existed to create music in an objective sense. Wood exists as a product of natural selection and cosmic forces over billions of years. An endless chain of mind numbing chance and permutations result in the formation of a tree and the formation of a human. That human decides to take that wood and make an object from it. And you think you have the authority to step in and say "no, that object is not yours, all the potential utility and pleasure you may have derived from it are not yours because this other person may or may no be able to make music?"

Does music exists at an abstract objective substance to be served and sought for its own sake? Sure, that may infact be so. But someone else in another thread wrote that "men do not exist to serve the Law" and I think that should apply here as well. Men do not exist to serve objective notions of music. The creator must be respected, property rights can serve to give people confidence and security that they may create and enjoy the fruits of that labor of creation. If you take away these things, then child B would have no motivation to create the flute in the first place. I say let the creation serve the creator.

You are right that rights do not exist in the objective sense so far as we can tell. Which makes all the more necessary that we explore and refine them as our creations. Just as we seek after music and beauty and justice and peace or any other thing. Emotion is not the enemy because it is not entirely subjective. I agree the goal of the society should be the flute makes music. But I do not want a society to exist that diminishes the individuals capacity to create. How would child B have the courage and confidence and personal determination to craft the flute of she did not also have the dream of hearing it's notes played?

There can be no other solution but to give B the choice of what to do with her flute. Should she let A have a turn to test it and please society with music? Yes, so give her that choice. Should she be kind to C and let them have a turn to play with it and expand her horizons? Yes, she should be encouraged to help her learn about improving her society in such a way. But when you take away the individuals choice of how thier created property is used or even if they can still own it, objective reasoning or not, less choice does not result in more flutes and more music.

>>14203301
A can buy herself a flute
The only reasons she knows how to play is because he parents paid for her to have lessons

B has the means to make another flute.

The correct answer is C.

>>14204216
I agree with your argument about the nature of rights, but I do not accept it as a justification for taking the property of B and giving it to anyone else. The individual is the begining and end of all things we can know or experience or conceptualize. It's not possible for us to think about or know of feel anything expect as a human knows and feels and thinks. We cannot escape that. there is bias and subjective faulty logic built in to even our most precise and objective sciences. Objectivity does not diminish the role of the individual creator in the scenario. If we go all the way down the faulty assumption of this question that I now have god like authority over the creations of child B then I could with such immense power grant child B God like authority over her creation absolutely and inviolate. But of course that is absurd as well. Child B may make a nuclear bomb, that doesn't mean there are not objective reasons not to deny her that property. Of course there are. I am agruing that objectivity is not the end if all thing but rather it should inform us as subjective creators. Further that society is best served by encouraging more creators to create as they please and enjoy those friuits is a far better thing than as this faulty scenario suggests that there can be some kind of authoritarian executive decision maker reallocating things from B to A for reasons it claims are objective.

>>14203301
CB loan it to CA to teach both CC to play it. CB should also teach CA and CC how to build it. CC should introduce this business to his community.
/thread

>>14204194
He thinks exploitation is one of many contradictions within capitalism that will lead to its own demise, and it is predicated on commodity-production, which in turn is predicated on exchange-value. Read Capital.
>>14204227
The working class would be abolished in communism along with the bourgeoise. Communism is the end of class distinctions. There is no working class to 'take' labor from.

>>14203301
Child A

>>14203301
C gets it because he’s a boy

>>14203891
>Anything but B
Yes. because none of his philosophy is about the proletariat seizing and keeping control of the fruits of their own labor.

>>14204660
>The working class would be abolished in communism along with the bourgeoise. Communism is the end of class distinctions. There is no working class to 'take' labor from.
Yes, but the picture demonstrated clearly shows an example of labor being produced. Please demonstrate to me how stealing labor, in this example, would be Marxian.

>>14205244
>stealing
Ill take the fucking pansy flute and beat each one of those dipshit kids until they each make their own got damn flute, make them stick it in a bag and hand them out at random

>>14203301
B.

>>14203301
Steal it and use it. I’m a flutist

A but only if he teach B how to play it.
B can make more or not if he doesn't desire to learn.
C should get a fucking job or be happy to just listen A play it.

>B, of course!

>>14203301
> Look mom I posted it again!
this image is designed so that the poster can say you agree with communism no matter which choice you pick, it's a dishonest "gotcha!".
anybody who posts it deserves to be summarily fed through a woodchipper.

>>14203301
Give it to A and make them play to entertain the others as a distraction. Tell B that C is why they don't have a flute, and tell C that B is why they don't have a flute.

>>14203301
A, simple as.

C is communist propaganda

C > A > B

>>14204234
>>14203408
Stirner is B

I wouldn't take it from B, but it should end up in the hands of A

>>14203343
Actually, I was gonna say, why not give it to A, and let A entertain the other two?

>>14203301
What the fuck are these babies gonna do if I keep the flute?

>>14206430
bawed and crypilled

>>14203318
>implying this isn't the only logical answer to Hume
What is, is what ought be.

>>14203381
yeah nah. "labour is entitled to all it creates" is a socialist thing.
B: socialism

I’m confused as to what “Child B” is supposed to represent. “I provided the materials for it” seems to be a capitalist stance, but “it is the fruit of my labor” indicates something else.

Child C doesn’t represent anything other than charity in the capitalist system, which is pathetic. If Child B represents socialism, then going with Child B is, ultimately, also siding with Child C.

>>14203301
A>B>C

>>14204401
lowest iq reply itt

>>14206876
no it isn't fucking dumbass, re-read capital. marx isn't a right-libertarian

>>14206876
https://mobile.twitter.com/PhilosophyCuck/status/1194246909067747329

>>14203318
The OP has absolutely nothing to do with Might Makes Right, brainlet.

>>14207316
it does

>>14204936
dumbo

>>14203301
Empty words that don't address implicit privileges and rights. In practice this is a psyop to mentally castrate opposition to one's unearned status. I suppose considering this more broadly, you could think of it as might makes right but it's hardly recognisable as an actual conflict of wills so saying that means nothing.

>>14204234
Imagine unironically being a Stirnerfag when even he wasn't stupid enough to follow his cringe egoism, because if he had, he'd have been dragged out into the street and bayoneted right in his cunt stomach.

It is very easy to take some sort of forward and bombastic tone when you don't actually practice your beliefs. Bring that cringe into real life, however, and you'll get a taste of the riflebutt right in your little toothie-woothies.

There's a reason there are no pictures of the faggot anywhere except a napkin scribble.

>>14207574
uh oh, butthurt!
Stirner didn't go viking mode exactly because he knew he would get BTFO, you don't have to be Conan the barbarian to practice egoism

>>14207574
Unless you're a total brainlet you understand that an Egoist will expect other people to clash with them when they act in an Egoist manner, by subconscious Egoist principles themselves.
That's not a failure in the philosophy at all.

>>14203301
Enjoy getting raped by someone who decided your asshole is now his property

>>14207316
It's an exact expression of Might Makes Right, doesn't matter that it's not a Redbeard quote, dummy.

I take the flute and feign needing time to deliberate, sell it, then announce sometime later that it was stolen, but only if their wandering minds come around to ask.

>>14203301
B, and then i strangle the lil commie and technocrat

>>14203301
B could sell the flute C to sell for a percentage of the profit (it's never explicitly stated that C has no money, only that he is the poorest), and then C could sell the flute to A for a markup; then A could charge for flute lessons, and/or performances.
That way, B makes a profit for her labor and acquires funds to potentially make more flutes to sell, C makes a marginal profit giving him capital and thereby improving his financial situation and economic mobility, as well as potentially forming a partnership with B for the sale of future flutes, and A can make use of the flute properly and also potentially gain capital. Further, if A charges for flute lessons, this could increase the potential market for flute purchases, thus expanding the earning potential for both B and C. C could also advertise for A's flute lessons and B's flutes for a fee, again increasing the potential earning of all three.
Everyone wins.

>>14203301
The best outcome is to let ownership of the flute go to B, who then lends the flute to A and as compensation receive a lesson on how to play a flute. Afterwards, C will be happy because he can fuck A with his shlong while sticking the flute up B's ass.

>>14207878
>B could sell the flute C to sell for a percentage of the profit
uh, these are little girls.
That said, it is rightfully B's. Why would you take a precious item from a little girl who made it herself? It's a stupid question.

>>14203301

Why should I be expected to intervene? Whomever is the physically strongest will win possession of the flute.

>>14203308
The correct answer
>>14203314
The correct answer but with fascist flavoring
>>14206876
Bolsheviks being bolsheviks

>>14203301
i (Dr. State) buy the flute from B and give it to A, then take C out for ice cream.

>>14203570
unironically better than distributing the flute wrongly.

>>14203301
Genuinely cannot imagine any ideology that picks C. Even if you want to maximize equality, giving it to C doesn't necessarily mean C=B=A. It could equally create a situation where C>B=A, which is still inequality.
It makes sense with money or whatever, obviously, but when it comes to random resources it makes no sense. Maybe if we're imagining that C could sell the flute. Did the LKY institute ever give examples of who picks C?

>>14203301
I would chop the flute into three pieces and then give it to each of the brats, in the hopes that they would learn a lesson about the ultimate results of pure self-interested selfishness.

>>14203381
Actually you could only argue A or B is Socialism. Capitalism would be a different kid taking the flute from B and selling it at a surplus. C makes no sense, I assume it's meant to be a type of redistribution but food stamps and a flute aren't a great comparison since even a person who's arguably bad with money can spend it.

>>14203301
A > B >C

>>14203325
This fits so much that I'm pissed off that I haven't read it or watched in some movie.

>>14208257
C, has nothing going in their life and lives in dire poverty. A flute would have kept their idle hands busy, and would have gave them something to do and a talent to cultivate. Because you refused to invest in them, their brains atrophied from a lack of activity and opportunity, subsequently became a depressed deadbeat that held society in great contempt and amounted to nothing. The end result is a net negative for their happiness and a net negative for societal contribution. It actually is more humane to execute C than to not give them the flute, as it terminates their misery rather than multiplies it.

>>14208921
Most people ITT seem to reject assuming anyone but the flute player will actually play the flute. It's also questionable whether they'll be able to self-teach. Music is fucking incomprehensible. If it was a pen, maybe.