LOL, I almost forgot to post this today

>IDF propaganda
>They look Jewish

Well done user..

Attached: 1524336555778.jpg (575x767, 70K)

>LKY School of Public Policy

>m-muh based jews!

>communist answer

it's called being a rational human being, maybe you should try it

are you retarded? B is the communist answer

No it isn't you dumb nigger. Read it again. B supplied the materials and labor, it's her flute.

>Women have to be based for you to breed them
>Not diluting Kike DNA

Fucking newfags.

Attached: 1523667946568.jpg (908x1330, 222K)

how is that any different from commies who say the laborers deserve the means of production

JIDF cant be more obvious than this, get off this board you dumb kikes

Attached: 1523214250459.jpg (1308x1636, 337K)

the child of a jewish mother is always jewish

Are you fucking retarded?
Jow Forums is 18+.

C only makes sense if you ignored the fact that child B provided the labor and materials required to make the flute.
Of the 3 children only child B holds any intrinsic economic value. Child A only holds value if Child B exists. Child C cannot contribute and only holds value as a person (which is another discussion completely)

The laborers are being paid by someone else to produce things. The product isn't theirs.

B is just a person who made a thing.

>The Goyim are smarter than I thought
Oy Vey, you caught me. Pic related is me.

Attached: IDF.jpg (1002x1497, 201K)

Let the children decide who gets it. It will teach them valueable life lessons.

Child B

this is some horse shit test. you don't have enough information.

it's hidden behind the veil of innocent children. was this done as a job? a school activity? a fun, self initiated project? did someone else buy the materials and the other two just chose not to do anything with them?

if B initiated the flute and did whatever she said then it's clearly hers. if it was a product of labor and was meant for sale or whatever then it's clearly not and she should have been compensated.

c can just fuck off in any situation

a might have a case if there is missing information which is the case for b

/thread
sage
this post is here everyday

A buys flute from B. Sales tax is charged on the sale to fund C's welfare.

>B
She made the flute, provided both the capital and labor, and isn't in any kind of agreement to exchange her labor for payment, therefore it's her property.

We've regressed so far that we've unlearned trade, capitalism, and free market. Amazing.

Child A doesn't GET the flute, she fucking buys it. And compensates Child B (Or the powers that employee child B).

Child B Receives some form of compensation for the flute through a contract with her employer who has given her the materials and opportunity to produce it. She is said through profit.

Child C fucks off completely. You're either a consumer, a producer, or a failed life. Child C can fuck off and die because Child C has no right to Child A or B's resources. There IS NO fair share of someone else's earned resources or property

Commies who say that the laborers deserve the means of production mean that the laborers are actually subject to state subordination and that the state actually owns the means of production since the state provided the materials for the workers to make the products. The state then divides the produce equally among them while hoarding most of the products and resources for the state officials.

TL;DR Commies don't really mean you get to keep what you make, they say that because using people as pawns is more efficient for creating a dictatorship where you get to exploit and trick dumb poor people into working for you.

WHOEVER
WINS
THE
FIGHT TO THE DEATH
>obvious right answer

Attached: 0f3ebffe-9f63-4748-a2fa-bbe9bb856803.gif (384x216, 588K)

You have to be kidding. Nobody is this retarded.

Also, commies maintain order through coercion and propaganda that talks about anti-property and anti-individualist rhetoric so that the people who are being enslaved won't question the state's actions.

what the fuck

Attached: flowers of evil22.gif (500x296, 1.59M)

Child B isn't an employee, she's an artisan. She either purchased or obtained the materials for the flute, and then crafted it. She made it, out of contract of any employer.

I keep the flute for myself.

Attached: 13398848_256430768054377_1485822516_a.jpg (150x150, 7K)

B made the flute with the intention of it being hers, so I have no right to deprive her of said flute. Child A is an entitled shit and Child C is not cute.
HNNG

all the factors required to make a decision are there, you obviously can't read.

A has no case, A's whole argument revolves around utility.
The argument is essentially:
I buy a rifle, I have limited experience with. My neighbor who is a trained sniper, and has won many competitions. He comes to my house and tells me to give it to him because he is more useful with it than I am. I tell him to fuck off.

Why not have child A teach the other two to play, so they can share?

oy vey

Should A be forced to teach the other two without compensation? What if B and C show no propensity for playing the flute?

B is paid full value for labor and materials
A is required to pay over the value of the labor and materials to benefit C
C provides nothing yet again.

All you did was shift the burden from the producer to the consumer.

Why the use of force? Why compensation? Playing music is supposed to be fun. If they give up trying to learn, then give the flute to A, since it is nice to hear music.

Child b and it's not even close.

The flute belongs to B anyway, for reasons explained above. It's her prerogative what she does with it. Maybe she sells it to A who makes money playing it professionally?