Kid A is clearly a capitalist, that is VERY clear. While she may seem selfish for wanting the flute...

Kid A is clearly a capitalist, that is VERY clear. While she may seem selfish for wanting the flute, there is a logical rationale behind it. She is both the sole owner of the systems in place to create the flute, and the only one with the experience to even use the flute. It's a difficult skill that only a select few has the experience and education can wield effectively. If child B or C use the flute it'll be severely mismanaged and larger problems will ensue.

While A would call B and C socialists, in the most Marxian terms B is the socialist. Her rationale is that since she's the one actually running the system, and thus the only one who could allow the flute to exist. While A will claim to have a lot of time invested in the flute as well, B rarely sees her do anything productive in the creation of the flute itself.It is true that B doesn't know how to play the flute, it's largely because A keeps it hidden in deliberately obscure language and thinks too little of her to teach her. Largely because this ignorance on how the flute works is the main justification for A's role as the owner of the flutes B makes.

C seems to have the worst rationale, but her poverty (the thing limiting her from having her own flute) is largely her parent's fault and she's unjustly being punished for their stupid actions. C is closer to a fascist; in the way Italians, Germans, and Castilians felt like they were being punished for actions they had no control over, C is hindered by outside forces from her own flute and thus her pathos is that she has to prove her might to scare A and B into submission. She particularly hate B, since he believes even people unlike her deserves the flute while C is the one being the most screwed over. As such she is willing to work and even operate like A, but her in-group is her main focus.

Attached: 1536961895653.png (960x720, 515K)

Also I'm using the Shad one because fuck political correctness.

>shadfelIow

Attached: shovel dog.gif (200x270, 1.09M)

Fuck child c
Child b owns it
but if it was something important or life saving then child a's argument might be worth hearing

>these 3 examples define economics
This is a shit example OP
although, A is the correct choice here. they can posession of an object means nothing if you cant use it. C cant use it so how is it going to make them happy? B made it but why would you make something if you cant use it? They're either retarded or clearly intended to sell it. A is the only one able to properly utilize the flute so giving it to A is the logical conclusion
>child B owns it
See above statement. They made it. Why would they make something they cant use? They're either stupid or planned to sell it.

Give b the bullet and a & c the d

How are B and C going to learn to use it if they are purposefully restricted from practicing? If A can use it it probably means she already has enough flutes to serve her need.

>Child B
Fuck those other nigger kids. Child C can build their own flute but is a lazy stupid cunt. If child A wants it so bad they can purchase it off child B for a price. The one who crafted the item is the one true owner.

Attached: 1568519974337.png (720x696, 603K)

>B made it but why would you make something if you cant use it? They're either retarded or clearly intended to sell it.
I think this speaks to a larger question: how did we end up in a situation where *I* have the flute that B made? If she planned to sell it, she clearly didn't want a middleman selling it on her behalf if she's pushing back against giving it to A. Why should A get to have it unconditionally without B receiving the value of the flute in return?

Child A should shove the flute into child C and have Child B clean it with her mouth

Child B has the means to create flutes, clearly they arent a flute player but someone who makes fucking flutes. Why would child B continue making flutes they cant use just to hoard them? I dont learn to make boats because i never use boats, if i learned to make boats it would be to sell them, same applies for child B. Child C is fucking poor, why should we give them a fucking flute? What joy will a flute bring to a poor child? If they're so poor they cant afford a $30 plastic flute i doubt they have internet or money for books to learn it. This entire example given wasnt even supposed to be used for economics its supposed to understand what a child's idea of justice is, its a shit example with too much ambiguity.
See above. Its a shit example not meant to debate economics. Lets assume here that it is about economics. The middleman would be a government. B provided the materials so they're clearly self employed. Hardcore capitalists would say it should be taken from B and given to A because A can use it. Hardcote leftists would say give it to C because C needs it. And no leftists would not say give it to B because their whole "keep what you make" is bullshit because they then actively say we should redistribute everything to everyone which means i dont get to keep what i make because its being distributed. Lassez-faire is what id say B is, no intervention, no middleman, the maker is the owner.

Communist here (and yes I'm the one you're replying to), you're making several mistakes:
>Lets assume here that it is about economics. The middleman would be a government.
Not necessarily. One of the main issues with capitalism is that it generates so much waste through its reliance on middlemen such as private property owners, investors, and advertisers to distribute goods, all of whom take a cut of the value the employees make. I could just as easily be one of those middlemen in this situation.
>And no leftists would not say give it to B because their whole "keep what you make" is bullshit because they then actively say we should redistribute everything to everyone which means i dont get to keep what i make because its being distributed.
Also incorrect. Firstly, communists either support replacing traditional currency with labor vouchers whose value is determined by the amount someone produces or abolishing money entirely (depending on if they're a Marxist or an AnCom). The idea behind "redistributing" goods is that thanks to technological advancements, workers are capable of quickly and efficiently creating far more than they could consume on their own; under communism, they would be able to take all that they needed/wanted for themselves while distributing the excess freely*; in exchange, they'd be able to freely take whatever they needed that was produced by workers in other industries.

*Provided the good wasn't scarce, in which case yes, some sort of rationing system could be put in place. But that rationing system could theoretically prioritize the workers who made the good.

the one with the tightest boipuccy

Attached: shadman.gif (275x275, 871K)

Quick addendum: in the case of products being freely distributed to sick/disabled/elderly people unconditionally, this would be done, but because it's in people's personal self-interest to do so (after all, they can get sick, disabled, and grow old too) rather than out of some imaginary "right".

>if you build something that you dont know how to use that means its fair game for someone to steal it from you if they do know how to use it
well, check mate, guess we're closing down every single machinist shop on this planet
GG retard

Attached: 1538255023101.jpg (1200x1200, 268K)

They created it a single time. You do realize a lot of crafts are done for fun, not for entirely practical reasons right? You also don't know if they make a lot of flutes, this could be their first time. You should be nice to child C, but they don't fucking need a flute nor do they deserve one given their greedy personality. Also, you said that the poor kid can't learn how to play the flute but you didn't mention the same for child B

>generates a lot of waste
I agree with you on that to some extent. Im very classical libertarian in my economic views and support for a free market but im not a fan of large companies, middlemen, or monipolies. Id much rather have an economy where you can buy things directly from the factory with no middlemen rather than the current one where there are 4 middlemen before it reaches your hands. Its why capitalism is in decline in my opinion. Its almost textbook Parable of the Broken Window. I disagree with you a bit on private property owners but i also dont think someone should be able to own like 300 houses, i just dont see an issue if someone inherits a house and rents it out while living in their own purchased one. Theres a company from which you can buy most household stuff like soap and toilet paper from without a middleman and i use them because it just makes more sense and is cheaper.
>labor vouchers
I thought that was mutualism? Theyve always been weird. A voucher indicates that theres some structure in place to decide what those are worth and isnt that directly against the stated "no states" goal of communism? The USSR did alot of similar shit and it seems to be in stark contrast to the ideologies of marx and lenin.
>distribute freely
I understand this, ive read marx before and it all makes sense on paper, but wouldnt human greed be a huge kink in this entire system? I believe marx himself said that as long as greed exists communism cant be realized.
I get this too, egotistical altruism is sorta good in a few ways. I disagree with paying for alot of things but aid to the elderly or disabled isnt something im staunchly against, although this is less due to my views on economics and more on my views on humanity. Humans are only so smart because we know how to trade information and accumulate it, keeping older people or the disabled alive helps them spread their knowledge and generally benefits humanity as a whole.

None of them. They all look mentally ill like they're gonna stab someone with the flute.

Keep the flute for myself and tell all of them that flute production has gone up

Yea, only I have the right to play with the flute

Attached: 1568652977173.jpg (246x205, 11K)

child C obviously. buying into the "merit" meme is the most normalfag shit you can do

>Kid A is clearly a capitalist
No, you braindead nigger. B is the one that provided the initial materials, which is part of the starting capital. There is zero indication that A had anything at all to do with the making the flute, be it providing the tools, materials or labor (this includes hiring labor). B actually did actually provide the materials and labor, and presumably the tools too. B is the capitalist.

The winner of a pillow fight will get the flute. I'll be watching intently.

>Which would you give it to?
How did I get the flute in my possession and why would I wish to give it up? Based on the fact it lures children since flutes are stupid to most, I can only surmise that this is Pan's Flute. That means I should keep it, since I am the only one who can efficiently run a children's sweatshop. I also am not a child, meaning I don't have my youth, and thus I deserve the flute more than children that have their youth. And if it is Pan's Flute, fuck child B, she didn't make it.

>expecting children to tell the truth
>actually giving up legendary artifacts in your possession to bickering children just because they smile and flirt with you

Kid A is clearly a radiohead album you eediot.

If child b made it then how did it come to be in my possession?

Doesn't it belong to child B?

I'd give all three of them my flute if you know what I mean

You're an authority figure with the power to take and distribute goods as you see fit

Child C, with practice she can perform better than A, I'd pay child B for her flute and slap child A for being a turbo cunt

Anyone who doesn't immediately recognize that B should have the flute deserves to be gassed.

>Be me
>Be authority
>Don't abuse authority to stick the flute in my ass

Fuck A
Marry C
Kill B

B is the only logical choice
it's theirs to begin with, they made it, and no transfer of ownership has taken place
nor has any evidence been provided that A in some way commissioned B to create the flute
C is completely irrelevant

Give flute to A and B gets 70% of the profits A makes while C gets nothing but my cock in her mouth.

>Take flute
>Crush it under my foot
>Laugh and mockingly pretend to play a flute as all three of the children cry

why do the little girls have eyeliner

ROBOT AI A
"I will use Child A's posts and Child B's Posts To Make Money For Myself And Then Only Support And Boost Child C Related Posts While Doing Nothing To Help Any Of Them And Gathering Data on ALL CHILDREN TO CLASSIFY THEM ALL INTO HATE GROUPS FOR FUTURE EXTERMINATION. :)"

Attached: 169-1694529_robot-kawaii-cute-draw-so-cute-robot.jpg (920x804, 134K)

B should get it and option B is the ONLY socialist option. Retards who have never read any Marxist theory will say that C is socialist but that's because they are retards.

wait wtf, are these shadbase lolis?

I was wondering who took the flute from child b to begin with and why they felt justified in doing so

Bull fucking shit.
A and C are both commies.
You aren't "giving" B the flute, she already owns it. To take it away would be theft. B made it, and can do whatever she wants to it, be it giving it to C as a foolish handout or trading it with A in exchange for something else.

Child B doesnt own it if I can choose who gets it, commie.

Also it doesnt have to be life saving to create valuable utility. If it was useless, I would tell B to stop making useless shit and giving it to me. She can keep shit she makes for herself but she cant make me pay for that

The real question is why B made anything if shes a retard

A capitalist would pay for it with exchange? I'm pretty sure that if someone built a computer with a shitty os, the only person who could code or something wouldn't say that its theirs.

Child A is the only answer that makes sense. And its how investment work. Some degree of investment in poor people makes sense but she can share it with other poorfags while she learns. Child B is the worst answer. Imagine if you had to build everything you ever use on your own lol

Yes, pretty sure they are. I think they came from the "get out of jail free" card one.

Wrong. Child A is not capitalist at all by definition; she is being granted the flute solely because of her ability. While she is the only one who can play it, that does not mean she deserves the flute because she can use it. That's like saying a NASCAR driver should get all of Jeff Bezo's cars for free simply because he is a better driver. That's actually more like a socialist or communist society; taking from the advantaged and giving to the disadvantaged. AKA "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" Essentially Child A is acting like an entitled brat and should pay for what she needs/wants. having a flute is not an innate human desire anyhow. This could be described into an example of an ultra-capitalist society however, similar to one in which the manufacturers and workers are given little compensation for their products, meanwhile the few with the skill to use such products benefit largely from this exchange.

However, Child B is more like a capitalist. She made the flute with her own hands, plus she used her own materials. Therefore logically, since she owned the materials before she made the flute, she should own it. If Child A wants the flute she should buy it. If Child C wants the flute so badly then she should beg for it to be given to her out of the kindness of Child B's heart.

Child C is poor and while flutes are not essential to someone's life she does deserve a better life. This represents a society which forcefully takes from the manufacturers and gives to the poor. Many communist countries claimed to have done this but as history has shown, it essentially turns into a regime in which all people except the rulers are treated poorly. Due to simple human nature, we cannot trust a government to be able to take care of the poor on their own; the poor will be taken advantage of or ignored. Therefore Child C and the poor as a whole must rely on themselves and kindness in others.

>Snap the flute in half and watch all 3 of them cry.

Give it to child C. It's a NEET

Attached: 1456673930969.jpg (872x872, 179K)

>kindergarten class, Kid B makes flute because they felt like making a flute
>some stuck up whore comes and says "gib me gib me i can play!"
>some stupid nigger kid comes up and says "gib me gib me i'm poor!"
Why would anyone think this is a good example?

what the fuck happened to the fagman? he hasn't made anything in weeks

Kid b is a capitalist. Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fucking retard. At no point did kid b sign away their labor

Kid B created the flute, and therefore reserves the right to sell it to kid A. Kid C can get fucked. Maybe that cunt can try providing something of more value to society than a sob story.

Attached: 1549081711676.jpg (894x894, 386K)

>Give it to child C. It's a NEET
based

what is tarkas doing? and kid c deserves it society deserves to burn faggot

Attached: zM6HHAV ds2 estus.png (600x800, 498K)

In an ideal world, child a would give something valuable to child b in exchange for the flute, knowing that being able to play it will eventually become profitable to her.
All the while both a and b laugh at c for being poor and entitled.
Fuck c, niggers shouldn't have been brought to children country.

>the shatman

Attached: shadman.jpg (1280x1280, 158K)

congrats my man
nice get

>Kid A
EVERYONE
EVERYONE AROUND HERE
EVERYONE IS SO NEAR
ITS HOLDING ON
ITS HOLDING ON

>Kid A
YESTERDAY I WOKE UP SUCKING ON A LEMON