Which child Jow Forums maybe C?

> make child A work for child B, and after they divide their earnings fairly, a small cut goes to child C so he can fix his pathetic life

Done, just like most social democracies in the 21 century.

A, she is the only one with that can use it practically

and of course it has to be a namefag to vote A
pathetic

Fuck A, Marry B, Kill C

Unironically

Child B owns the flute.
Child A has a use for the flute.
And because Child A is not poor AND can use the flute (talented people usually aren't poor), Child A can pay Child B for the flute, so that Child B can buy new materials and shit to make new flutes and shit. I feel like Child B would enjoy having more materials much more than just having the flute.

So it depends:
If Child B is ok with it, then
Therefore Child A gets the flute.
Child B gets money from child A.
And Child C can go fuck themselves.

If Child B does not want to sell the flute, then Child B gets the flute.

If A knows how to play the flute she obviously already has one and is simply asking for gibs, so fuck her, B should keep it
C is not even an option

B. you have to work for what you want

I like how both the wrong answers are redheads.

Get C to teach A how to play, then C can make money for both A and B. Problem fucking solved.

>taxing B 100% and giving it all to a single beneficiary
Whoever made this as an allegory is fucking retarded.

Child D, Tyrone, that stole the flute while these autismos argued

Why even give the flute in the first place? Was the flute even that important? Don't give the flute to any of those fuckers, no one needs no flute.

They all get the flute. You placate C so he won't kill the other two.

It's asking who you'd give it to, you fucking retard.

C, because A and B are thotties

>Steal someone's paycheck
>Do you give it to a "poor" person, an experienced investor, or the person to whom the paycheck is owed?

give it to B but encourage her to let A use it in a non-coercive way

B obviously
I hate these bait and switch bullshit arguments

The only right answer is to have them share the flute. Someone who's studying music generally practices only a few hours a day, so it's perfectly reasonable that all of them may use the instrument.

I would give it to C just to spite both A and B for no reason like a true agent of chaos

child a lul

B.
Property is property, forcefully taking away something is theft.

Child B and anybody who says otherwise is a filthy commie.

Child B can not play the flute

Child C can not play the flute

Child A can play the flute

Seems sort of obvious Child A should get it.

Fucking commies in this thread get out

You're a nigger if you give the flute to child A.
You're a faggot if you give the flute to child C.
The only option is B, because you stole the fucking thing from her, but since you're already a nigger faggot for stealing her creation, you'd probably give it to the rich kid or keep it for yourself anyways.

CB made the flute.
CA did not make the flute.
CC did not make the flute.

CB should keep the flute. CB should be able to exchange it if he or she wills.

Only brainlets would give it to B, the point of a flute is to be played and only A can do that, therefore he deserves it

B, there is no fucking discussion to be had.

You can just break the flute in 3, give a part to each individual. duh.

>the point of a flute is to be played

Bullshit. Instruments are as much art pieces as they are tools for making music. If B made it for the artistic intent of it being a display piece, then why should A get it?

>If B made it for the artistic intent of it being a display piece
>If
If the point of flute was to be displayed then it would belong to B but that's an assumption. An object must fulfill the role it is designed for and the point of a flute is to played therefore it belongs to A

if A really wants to play that flute, she better pay up what that flute is worth, or fuck, at least ask.
what is this test for anyway? is it to guage economic status, or is it certain mindsets that pwople have that can be found out during childhood?

>B made the flute
It's literally hers, so long as she legally owned the materials. That's the end of it. If I make a wood carving it doesn't belong to anyone else.

Choosing anything other than B is toxic communism and should henceforth be chastised. Or, to be accurate, choosing A could also be counted as royalty ripping the livelihood off their subjects.

In whose sick, twisted mind it is right to rip a product of labor from the makers hands and give it to anyone else? Regardless whether the receiver can use it. B should always have the right to sell, give or keep whatever B makes and same goes for the rest of them. Only this way is fair. Anything else is ideologistic.

>In whose sick, twisted mind it is right to rip a product of labor from the makers hands and give it to anyone else?
If your mother (or whoever else you care about and don't want to die. If this doesn't apply to you don't respond) had a disease that would kill her very painfully over a prolonged period of time, and the only person who had the ability to make the cure either A) had no way to apply it or B)had no desire to put it up for sale, it would make sense for you to steal it. You can argue whether that is the correct choice of action but it's perfectly understandable.

B is still the correct choice and your shitty moral dilema doesn't make it right

>Child A
Jews
>Child B
Whites
>Child C
Niggers

None. If I have the power to give it to any one child and keep it away from any combination of two children, I can certainly keep it away from all three. It's my property.

Attached: 1537001392788.jpg (480x360, 29K)

I break it into three parts. Now all can flute!

Sell the flute to A and give the money to B plus my fair share. If A don't have the money, then I will just give it back to B.

C can go fuck herself.

Attached: file.png (690x661, 387K)

I think establishing who has claim is the point of this exercise, you can't just say "A has no claim" without specifying why they have no claim. A's provided a (reasonable) rationale as to why they do have claim - what's wrong with their reasoning?