Defend any choice other than b Jow Forums, pro tip you can't

This is the perfect example of why socialism sucks.

Attached: Captalist Cyoa.png (960x720, 226K)

Child b should get the flute, they FUCKING MADE IT, it is up to her whether or not to give it to child c or let them use it, child a is entitled whore

I would sell flute to A and give money to B

B, sell to A, scoff at C and call them a soyboy

Why? you have no right over her property, it's hers she made it, she does not want to trade.

This is now a fuck marry kill thread.

C, A, B.

Why own property if you cant use it?

Assuming tge child that made the flute procured the materials and equipment to make it legally and isn't making it as part of a work for hire agreement, it is her flute to sell or use as she decides.

Why? Child b already has employment. Child c is impoverished thus the money should be distributed to him.

It's my flute.

It's B's flute, period.

If B is smart, B will take payments on it from A, who convinces C to get off his ass to book gigs for A at the local inns/pubs. C gets out of poverty, A gets to show off her talent and make money, and B gets money to make more flutes (maybe even take on C as an apprentice) or expand into other instruments.

neck yourself you imbecilic Lolbertardian.

Child C.

Women shouldn't be allowed to own property.

Because you made said property, you could look at it, you could burn it, but you made it, other don't have the right to take just because you disagree with the way it's being used.

Child C will always be impoverished if you keep giving things to them, why work when someone will just give the things to survive.

If B also paid for the materials and everything involved in the production of the flute it is obviously hers. If she made it in the employ of someone else than it belongs to her employer. This question is so obviously leading as to make it worthless.

You can't give the flute to anyone because it's not yours. You can only steal it or defend it. If the question was written correctly it should ask whether you want to steal the flute from child B or whether you want to defend child B from criminals.

Commie propaganda, A is the answer if B was paid for labour.

Beautifully said

It's Child B's flute. Child A can make their own flute. I toss Child C off a cliff.

> You know what will help the child keep making flutes? taking it away and giving her something she does not want n return.
Appropriation of the product destroys production.

lol, Child C can go suck some dicks and get a flute with the moneyz.
Child A can play the flute, it most likely means she already owns one.

B should crack C over the head with the flute and threaten to do the same to A if she doesn’t play beautiful music for free.

child B made the flute. why am i now the person who has the flute? i would take it for myself. or sell to A

B is essentially a Classical Mrxist -- because she supposes that her labor power ought to determine the value/use/worth of the commodity (here a flute).

C is faggot. He would likely bandwagon with B in a political campaign. C has no justification for the flute -- let alone his own existence.

A is the true aristocrat, and she deserves the flute. If the flute I for playing -- and it is -- then who else should play it other than one who can play it well? She ought to have it, because she can put the flute to its proper use, and make good of it. The other little fucks cannot do this, and so they ought not have the flute.

because you're a filthy commie.
let B keep the flute, sell it of her own volition to A, and employ C in the flute making trade
this is not even a question.

I'd keep the flute, fuck the children.

Your retarded

Saw the flute in 3 parts and tell them here you go, that is socialism for you.

Wait, it's clearly stated that it's B's flute, so why is this even an issue? What fucking communist bullshit is this? Are they really teaching kids this early on that taking people shit is okay?

How?

You can't beat the little girl's argument. She says, "the point of the flute is to make music" -- the other kids can't do this, and so they have no business with the flute.

Fuck off AnCap faggot

A is the obvious Answer. A tool should always be in the hand of the one who will use it to fullest potential. Fucking ez.

And don't give me some bullshit John Locke argument in favor of B either, pussy

Fuck off deep state elitist shill.

Yeah, I'm a shill because I support A?

A is the aristocrat, and the true face of the ethnostate

A is the most logical. B is more moral. C is retarded

Your faggot ass ethnistate can’t even exist if you you don’t reward producers. Enjoy not eating.

Try and use your tiny commie brain and do a little thinking about the future:
If you steal girl B's flute that she made, what incentive does she have to make another flute?

I sell the flute to the highest bidder, duh!

>A gets flute
>B does not make another flute because it gets stolen by CIAniggers
>Flute gets worn out or broken
>A and C are broke niggers and cannot make another flute
>A and C blame B for using evil magic and kill B
>A asks the UN for flute shipments and begs B's family to come make flutes.

Attached: 1511816928638.jpg (912x1111, 298K)

I made child B, I own her and everything she produces.

Why would you sell it to A? You should seek out the best deal as set by the market then re-reimburse B for the cost of her raw material and keep the rest because you found the buyer.
Why cede the power to B? You are have the flute.
She has no right to the flute, she is just a child using your property to make something. As the owner of the tools and material, the flute is your property.
B,A, C
To amass wealth in one location for the purpose of leveraging power later on.
The flute is in your possession, it is your property
correct

the flute belongs to B so the other 2 can go fuck themselves

I didn’t know this took place in Africa.

>meme commie flag
You would take the flute by force from child B, cut it in half, keep one half for yourself, and cut the other half into three pieces which you give to each of the children.

B can be compensated. Just saying, if the question is: who ought to have the flute? it's A -- because A can play the flute.

WHo cares if B made it? If you worked at a Toyota manufacturing depot, should you own all the Toyotas?

She made the damn flute, why should A be entitle to the fucking flute whitout putting in any effort towards the creation, if a had the means of production then it would be another story, as a would only have to pay a salary to b, but those were also B's. Giving it to A is blatant stealing.

Its all Africa, nothing is not Africa we need to kill niggers once and for all.

The point is determined by the user, and is not inherent in the object. What is the point of a stick? is its point to beat communists? It is to me. To the communist the point of the stick might be food.

Even if we accept that an object has one inherent "point" or "purpose" that trumps all other possible uses for that object, your argument still does not hold water. Namely, B can also play the flute. Maybe not "well" in your judgement, but she can play it nonetheless.

tl;dr: your retarded

Child B sells the flute to Child A, B then pays Child C to make flutes. This is how an economy works.

child b should be making it to sell. The child doesn't play it

Child B gets my D nowyamsayn?

Fag in this scenario she made the flute with her won materials, the resources are hers. She either bought or foraged in the forest for the wood.

>she made it so she owns it
That's a commie argument. Factory workers don't own the product they make

Compensated by what if she only wants the flute? For all you know she made it to learn how to play the flute.

I told you not to use a Locke argument faggot.
If "putting effort into a things creation" means that you partake in its ownership --- then McDonalds is owned by the nigs who make the chessburgers there.

If the same logic hold true in automanufacuring -- then poor, little chinks in Asia own all the Toyotas at the dealership

If the logic holds true for candy-manufacturing, then the faggots in the factory own the candy (before it is distributed). Making something doesn't mean you own it, dipshit

Its not a factory, she owned the tools and the wood required to make the flute, you are the government, you can be a nigger and steal from her or you can be white and protect her right to her property.

Why would C be the maker of flutes though when B is clearly the flute maker? B would sell them to both, lowering the price of the flute to attract more sales (its now both A and C than just A).

You don't own the entirety of the production of the Toyotas you brainlet. If you somehow built a car from scratch then yes it would be yours.

Why the fuck do you have the flute to give to anyone? B made the flute. When did you take it from B?

B of course. If you coose other than b you literally dont deserve to live.

This, its also why intellectual property is retarded, if I copy the design of something and then make it cheaper then I deserve the money I make.

Then child c can suck dick for money for flute making materials. Like how you can suck my balls you commie faggot.

No, the commie argument would be if she made it with another one's resources and machinery, while being payd a salary, in this case the resources and machinery were provided by B and she did with of her own free will without being payd.

Because they don't own the materials m8.

If you own the materials and own your labor, and then combine the materials with your labor into a product, you own the product.

If she produces but does not own the product then she either
(a) does not own the materials
(b) does not own her labor

In case (a) she can sell her labor (that she owns) to someone who owns materials, and then produce for that person, or she can buy materials and then produce for herself.

In case (b) we have slavery

No one has made a claim of owning the flute. It seems like one flute was created during a class project and they're fighting for it. Otherwise there's a transaction between B and A/C that's gone wrong.

B should lend the flute to A so can give concerts to make money from which materials for more flutes should be made by B.
Then A should teach B and C how to play the flute so they can found a music group and all live modest but fulfilling lives.
That's Fascism btw

>she foraged for the wood
Then the flute is the property of the man who owns the woodland and she is a thief.

Redistribution is commie shit

So if you make a candy bar from scratch (in a factory owned by someone else) you get to keep it right?

Because that's what you just said.

B if A wasn't going to trade for it.

A if I had no use for it.

C if I hated it and I didn't know A.

Just ban flutes

what if B works for you and does not own the means to produce the flute and just put in the work?

Would you give ownership of a building to the workers who constructed it (B) or to a corporation that will put it to good use producing for the economy (A)?

B
This as well, if A knows how to play it, shouldn't he already have one?

The Woodland is a domain of the King and he should decide who gets the flute.

Attached: 1518493696114.png (402x330, 233K)

To clarify: A if I had no use for it *and didn't find any worth in it*.

No you nigger because you only got the materials to make the candy bar from the factory owners.

If you caught yourself a wild animal and milked it and then made chocolate out of it then its yours.

Correct

Yeah except she also provided the materials (capital) to make the flute.

keep the flute, kill the younglings

Attached: 84b.jpg (600x351, 35K)

It is a commie argument, you cock sucker.

Read the very first chapter of dickhead Marx' Captial. He talks about this at length.

Labor power determines a commodity's value. If someone works to make something, then they own it. The factory owner or the guy who owns the means of production doesn't do shit -- so he doesn't "own" anything that his workers produce.

Stop watchin Stefan Molyniux

stick the flute up my anus in front of them and fart and make *brep* music noises and then ask if they still want to flute

tard detected

>>she foraged for the wood
>Then the flute is the property of the man who owns the woodland and she is a thief.
The wood as hers as well, she and her family settled it in the 1500, when there were no propel around, the king latter gave them the land since they were paying taxes.
The point is that the resources were hers to begin with, and she go the legally how she got them does not matter, they are her in the begging before "you" too the flute away.

Buy the fucking flute. I give it to the one works hardest. Because that one who wants it the most.

its easy
I keep the flute
*tips nose*

B you cùcks

Are you scizophrenic? idk who you're quoting but it's not me.

I'll repeat in easy to digest chunks:
An object does not have an inherent purpose.
Example: What is the purpose of a rock? Is it to throw at communists? It is to me. Is it to chew on? It is to the communist.

The purpose of an object is determined by the user.
Example: If I own a flute to scratch my ass with, it is an ass scratcher. If I own a flute because I play it, it is an instrument.

Just because girl B cannot play the flute WELL does not mean she cannot play it. If those goods with a specific "purpose" can only go to that person who can use those goods "the best" (whatever that means), where "the best" is determined by you (or any other totalitarian leader, or even by democracy in some form) that's communism.

Oh, I see.

So how do you know the little girl gathered all of the parts to make her flute on her own?

Did she buy them?

What if B is a factory worker? You can't prove that she isn't. lol fuckhead

If I can't give it to B obviously A gets it? Wjat's the point of giving an instrument to someone who can't play it?

Both A and C should learn to produce something.