Well Jow Forums, who should get it?

Confiscate the flute along with child B, take both to a secret government facility where the flute can be deconstructed to learn it's secrets, and the child interrogated and autopsied for the same.
Kill Child A as a collateral witness to the flute.
Feed Child C disinformation so that he creates false flute conspiracy videos online which undermine the publics confidence that the flute ever existed.

not even the author managed word this question into a problem, ffs

Obviously none of them can be trusted with the flute. I take it for myself to fund my battle with muhamed across the street.

easy
>fuck A
>marry B
>kill C

How did I get the flute in the first place?

Buy it from B and sell it to A for a profit.

Give it to child B to sell to child A. When child A has used the flute to establish a successful career and can retire, then she gives the flute to person C. Person C uses the flute to kill themself.

Why do I even have any say in this? B made the flute, I have no say over what she does with it, that's totally up to her. I might advise her to either let A play it if she wants to hear it played, or to have A teach her how to play it, but ultimately it's not up to me.

Attached: 1508112293719.jpg (5000x5000, 388K)

lmfao i see the CIA is well an active today, say hello to the other alphabet boys for me

A) "teach the other kids to play the flute or you don't get any!"

B) "teach the other kids how to build a flute or you will be not allowed to make any other! Also you should work with A to make better flutes!"

C) "move your ass you lazy nigger and go to work with A and B!"

Easy

The only answer allowed is B.

Child B.
Whoever says anything else is retarded
Also child C gets the rope.

A and C
>Entitled brats claim to "deserve" the fruits of another's labor without agreed upon payment

B
>Produced but has no use for, clearly intent on selling for profit to spend on other goods. Does not want flute forcibly seized

A and C are both communists, A is honest, C is using a sob story

B is the rightful owner and is free to give or sell it as she sees fit

Stop with this retarded faggoty thread. The person who made it and owns it gets to keep it for as long as they want. NO IFS, ANDS, OR BUTS. Only truly retarded faggots think otherwise

Why wouldn't you take child A to the facility so you can understand how the flute works? Killing her prematurely means that you only know half of the secrets.

Kys commie faggot. Child B made the flute, you have no right to take it away from her and you have no right to force her to teach the other kids how to make one.

A, the only one who can produce music and use the tool. B is just uneducated labor, and C is a useless leech.

Clearly a meritocratic society would give A the flute for A is the most skilled and educated, obviously higher up in the hierarchy. B manufactures the product but the product without A is useless, B is just labor. C should stop being such a communist.

Attached: 1494819990279.jpg (700x866, 172K)

>B provided materials for the flute
>B is just uneducated labor
Pick one.

>this exact same thread has happened before
Child B owns the flute, Child A should buy it from her (potentially she provides music to third party who buys the flute for her), Child C should be gassed.

>Who would you give it to

It's Bs property. Not my decision to give it to anyone.

>you need to go to college to gather materials

>Clearly a meritocratic society would give A the flute
Retard spotted.
A meritocratic society would give the flute to the person who made it.
Child A needs to BUY the fucking flute from child B if she really wants to have it.

B, but the implied commie interpretation goes out the window when B is not the owner, but an employee.

What level on revision are you on right now my dude?

Communist spotted. A is clearly better than B, more educated and higher up, B needs to learn her place. She is a worker, A can use the flute and produce something neither B nor C can, without A the flute is pointless and useless. B is meaningful only as long as A gets to use the flute otherwise her labor bears no fruit.

Communists want the fruits of their labor, which is not inconsistent with B. But this exact situation cannot be applied to the economy.

>Child B made the flute
And since he doesn't know how to properly play it he just wasted time and resources.

>you have no right to take it away from her
Kids where unable to sort this situation by themself so they asked for an external authority figure to extend "justice" and by doing so they gave up any right in that very moment.

>and you have no right to force her to teach the other kids how to make one.
No, as i don't have the right to force A to teach how to play the flute or to force C to work for them, but guess what? I did anyway and now we may end with more flutes and more skilled kids and no more whining for sure.

i'm gonna fuck your mom m8 because she obviously produced something pointless and useless, and your father's labour bore no fruit

THIS

Commies BTFO

I hate children, so I keep the flute for myself.

my anus

Whoever bought it commie thats how it works.

B

Bullshit A and C tried to take from rightful owner B who saught out authority to enforce the NAP

That still doesn't change the fact that A needs to buy it from B, she's not allowed to take it for free.

>A can use the flute and produce something neither B nor C can, without A the flute is pointless and useless.

This doesn't make any fucking sense you retard. Without child B, child A is pointless and useless because she knows how to play the flute but doesn't know how it can be made hence child B can produce something neither A or C can.
Now kys kike

It's a trick question that keeps getting posted here. Any decision you make is wrong because it comes from an authoritarian stance of dictating where the flute belongs.

So fuck off and let the free market worry about itself.

Clearly if B made it, it would currently be in B's possession and is B's property. I'm not going to give it to B because it already is B's and I have no authority over someone else's private property.

If B were smart, she'd sell it to A, and hire C, train to make flutes for dirt cheap and live off the profits and do nothing.

This is the only correct answer, anything else and you're cucked a fucked.

b, and than maybe a.

I sell the flute to the highest bidder and split the profits with Child B after paying for the cost of the materials. I earned my cut through convincing the buyer to purchase the flute, a skill which Child B likely does not have. Likewise, the time I spent selling the flute, Child B can use to make another flute.

That's actually the communist position. The difference is that they don't see CEO's as the people who actually make anything, they think it all belongs to the workers.
>t. former communist.

Its not a communist position in this case. If applying it to an economy where people have unequal positions, then yes that makes it communist.

seize the flute, arrest the litigants

By your reasoning Chinese children slaving away in a sweatshop deserve sportswear more than athletes because they made it and the athlete did not.

It's pretty fucking simple, A is worth more than B to society, A should get the flute. Some people are meant to be in charge and some are meant to follow. B is labor and should work for A.

this thread pops up every couple of days and this question is stupid and irrelevant

what happens in the real world is that B sells the flute to A and sometimes C wants free gibs

of course the flute belongs to B, i dont understand why anyone would say anything else?

since when do we take stuff that people made?
who even wants to keep everything he makes? people trade stuff for money thats how trade works

fucking retards

Attached: 1522223967673.jpg (638x362, 116K)

a flute produces music, and can be used to gain capital.
it is therefore part of the means of production.
now, you say this is unfair, but this is communism.
reconsider you position

Who am I to arbitrate this dispute. Let there be war.

>Bullshit
Lets see

>A and C tried to take from rightful owner B
Who also has not the means to defend his rightful position since is two on one

>who saught out authority to enforce the NAP
Giving up his right to hold his position by choosing so. Also the authority (me) enforced the nap by preventing a new situation like this from occuring again.

a if you are a commie, since it's part of the means of production. it creates music, and B shouldnt be rent seeking on A.

if C was black then its self explanitory

Would you give a gun to a cop who has never shot one before?

Or a scalpel to a pharmacy tech?

No. So why not exploit B to benefit A? C should get nothing except the urge to learn how to play the flute since only one plays.

>a commie nigger who wants free gibs is more worthy than someone who keeps the economy going

Nice logic retard.

>B is labor and should work for A.

This implies that child B should get paid by child A. This is the third time that I'm trying to explain this to you. If you still fail to understand something so basic and simple it means that you are mentally challenged or that you have subhuman IQ.

Fuck you, kike. You'd give them all flutes. Wait, who am I kidding? You're a tight bastard who wouldn't give anyone anything.

Jow Forums is the new /b/ without a doubt. All of this and still not a single good answer and most are shitposting. Meanwhile /his/ a serious discussion took place.
boards.Jow Forums.org/his/thread/4452204#bottom

>It's pretty fucking simple, A is worth more than B to society, A should get the flute.
Enjoy your society where nobody wants to work because they get the product taken away from them. You called the other black communist, but your line of thought is literally the core of the earliest form of communism. On the other hand I can't expect arabs to understand complex stuff like this, so I guess it's not your fault.

The one who made it gets it. This is called property rights. Anything other than that is robbery per definition

This is one of two correct answers,
The other being that you break the flute into three pieces and hand them each a part. Because fuck them

Kill yourself.

this is b8 but I'll bite

If you take the flute from B, then B will refuse to ever make flutes again. A will be the last generation to know how to use flutes and thus you have destroyed flute music forever. Good job communists.

b, thats the answer

Attached: don-pepe.jpg (1000x1461, 49K)

>t. Sholmo Goldberg

This, i means FUCKING THIS!!!

Attached: images (15).jpg (300x168, 6K)

>1 post by this id
>this thread all days
>fags still fall for it
Sage in all the options

>By your reasoning Chinese children slaving away in a sweatshop deserve sportswear more than athletes because they made it and the athlete did not.
That sportswear still gets sold for money, it isn't handed over for free you commie nigger.

>It's pretty fucking simple, A is worth more than B to society, A should get the flute.
A doesn't know how to make the flute. Without B her flute skills are fucking worthless.
B can sell the flute to A, trade it for something, etc. But you can't make her hand it to A for free you fucking communist nigger.

The flute should go to whoever commissioned B to make the flute. Its their choice.

Actually this entire setup makes no sense. Change from "flute" to a McDouble and you instantly see why this scenario is so flawed.

So the real question is, why is this a question in the first place? If B made it, then B has possession of it and there is no question and thus no thread. The fact that this is a question means that the state used the threat of violence to steal the flute from B, after B made it, and is now deciding what to do with it.

>communism: not even once

Attached: Down with the capitalist system, man!.jpg (293x400, 66K)

It's B's flute ultimately but I propose B hires C to make two flutes in exchange for one, and one of the flutes C made is given by B to A in exchange for lessons for B and C.

Child B should sell the flute to child A. Child C should kill themselves.

give the flute to child A and then force her to play 24/7 until she goes insane. To child B I buy a guitar since flutes are gay. Child C is genocided

I'd steal the flute and play it myself because children get NOTHING.

Attached: 1479037768146.gif (350x550, 2.04M)

B.
>She made it
>She could learn to play it as well as A
>She could become poor as C in the future

hardly difficult.

Attached: ad_129656312-e1394786302592.jpg (748x507, 80K)

Boring thread is boring (again)

The straight white male should get it.

Give it to Child C. Watch Child A and Child B rip him to shreds.

Attached: popcorn-family.jpg (960x540, 43K)

try to not be so racist op

Attached: 49.jpg (1254x720, 125K)

Should say
>gib me dat for free
Otherwise breddy gud.

Can someone explain the context of this image? Where did it come from? What point was the attached article trying to make? The answer is a little too obvious, which makes me think there was a point made of it at some point.

Tell them you will break it in three pieces...the one who decides to give up for the sake of the integrity of the instrument is the one who deserves it most.

Attached: 22551-patches-ac-dc-high-voltage-0.jpg (1000x1000, 136K)

It's like you're begging for a suicide with two gunshots to the back of the head

I'm trying to be completely objective and leave my politics out of it-

A- only one who can use, other two can only sell or keep.

B- labour, effort, materials. Won't make more flutes if no rewards.

C- Poor and flute can change life, if life changed can be of more benefit to society in future and may allow c to create business/get education that will give more to the state as well as himself.

If we're to understand these are literally children, B/A are likely more richer than c - but then possibly B was saving her money to make the flute in order to feed self and A may also be poor but due to musical background desires flute more than potential economic advantage of sale, so not necessarily. C may literally starve to death without flute, assuming no other actions can be taken by the arbitor and no other information can be gained. C likely in position through no fault of own as he is a child.

If other actions can be taken, B keeps flute, sells to a and is compelled to give a reasonable proportion of sale to C by arbitor. The justice of this is explained to b and initially she is asked to give a portion of her money, but if she isn't willing that amount is taken from her.

C receives the money but this is a loan. B teaches how to make flutes and C pays off B for loan and teaching with money from making flutes - but then, this would adversely affect B business if competition from C, so may have to be compelled to teach him.

Issue is economic and based on usage and ownership. No capitalism in the system, then no problem with 'poverty' for c (assuming ideal system), but still issue with A/b ownership.

Ownership as a concept is the issue here - the idea that one individual has to own the flute exclusively when there is no true reason, it is not a consumable. Or, more mildly, that ownership has to be permanent and B can't simply lend to A.

tbc

Issue then becomes motivation for B to make flutes in future. B needs to be educated in finding the worth of their labour, their noble ability to create the tools of music for others and their place as a honoured artisan in society who is respected, and loans these tools to the talented - they are honoured for their creation when the player performs.

If arbitor may take any action - B keeps flute, capitalism eliminated and post-capitalist society's culture legitimises the lending of the flute between b/a

If arbitor can take actions outside choice but limited to everyday - B keeps flute and loans to a, arbitor is responsible for helping c as they are adult and it is their civic duty

If no actions can be taken apart from the choice, flute goes to C as this is the only individual whose life may be threatened by not having the flute. This is explained to B as a necessary evil.

If no actions can be taken apart from the choice and this will be used as a precedent for future decisions, flute goes to B as in capitalist system taking from producers as a rule destroys their reason to produce. This is also a necessary evil, even if C were to die as a result, because taking from the producers would create infinitely more Cs.

Kill the kids. Now we don't have to solve the problem

only obvious answer is b
if you answer a or c youre a fag

kek

what has this website done to me

Attached: 1520726333693.jpg (293x301, 11K)

Cut the top 1/3 off the flute and give it to the guy who gave girl B the materials and the tools to make it, then give the rest to girl B.

sportswear are products that are sold to the US which are then sold to athletes, they are not just "gave away" you fucking inbred faggot

B. You earn what you make.

all that EDGEEEEEEEE

Attached: 063_504619528-e1452807823343.jpg (768x480, 65K)

b

all children can learn how to play, and that shit test only makes it sound like the poor kid could have nothing else in life, not even to eat.

Just give the kid something more useful than a flute

fuck the first kid, desu

Attached: skeleton po paper man sitting.jpg (600x450, 20K)

Give it to the child whose mom has the bigger boobs

fpbp

this is the one true answer

Attached: mixels nigger tribe.png (882x670, 422K)