Three children come to you with a flute. They cannot decide among themselves who should keep it.
Child A says: "I should get the flute. I'm the only one here who can play it. And after all, the point of the flute is to make music. The other two can't play, so why should they get it?"
Then, Child B says: " My families' fully automated company made the flute. It may no longer require any efford to create anything but the company belongs to my family regardless. How could you possibly take this from me and give it to someone else?"
Finally, Child C says: "Of the three of us, I am the poorest. I have nothing in this world. My grandparents didn't get into the gated post-scarcity-community because they didn't invest into AI stock 50 years ago and because of automation there is no means of income for me. You should give me the flute, because, then, you would have improved my lot in life immeasurably."
The flute belongs to kid B, it is his family's property. It should be his decision if who he gives the flute to, if he gives it away at all because he has every right to keep it.
Josiah Davis
It doesn't belong to anyone you tard
>Three children come to you with a flute. They cannot decide among themselves who should keep it.
Read the question you retarded mutt
Asher Powell
Stick the flute in my pooper and fart a joyous melody then ask who wants it.
Thomas Thomas
A, all other fags cant even play it why its this so hard to understand?
Jace Gonzalez
Child B objectively
Carter Fisher
>It may no longer require any efford to create anything
This is the problem with commies. If I didn't require any effort to producing anything there would be enough flutes for all of them to have more flutes than they're ever want. God damn, commies are going to be our downfall. Either when the Ruskies nuke us or when the gibs voters take over and we become the same as every communist shithole country.
Sebastian Parker
>It may no longer require any efford to create anything
The Marxist utopia fantasy hinges around this idea that there is an infinite supply of as much free shit as anybody could ever want. A rope and a tall tree is the only cure for you.
Colton Campbell
make the children fight for it
Grayson Diaz
A flute is largely useless, who cares.
Ethan Robinson
I say I will break the flute into three pieces and each child gets one part If one of the children gives up their claim to it in order for it to remain whole, that child is the true owner
Tyler Rivera
Why does child C even want it? Child B should arrange special financing to child A.
They should share and take turns, it's only a flute and three children after all.
Matthew Cruz
L.O.L. O.P. wasn't a cool guy.
Brody Stewart
Yep. But also, note who actually had it when they bring it over and ask how he got it.
Leo Nguyen
I'm stuck between A and B.
How much is A going to play it? If he knows how to play flutes, it's fair to assume he would own one or more flutes already, so an additional flute for him doesn't make much of a difference. However, if he has no other flutes or if he simply does intend on using it often, I think A has a good stance.
On the other hand, what is B going to do with it? Is he going to put it somewhere visible where he and others can appreciate it? Or is he just going to throw it in a box and shove it in the attic to acquire dust?
Finally, fuck C.
Xavier Young
This is what happens in the real world. It's what the fiancé industry does. They take capital from those that have it and get it to those who know how to use it to make money and everybody gets paid.
Except kid c who did nothing useful and the world would be better off without.
Jason Thomas
Nobody "gets" the flute. Child B made the flute with the machines they own. If he's not a retard he'll loan it to Child A in exchange for a split of his performance earnings in a city commons.
Aaron Martin
It does belong to the factory that made it, unless it was sold. It is not anyone’s to give.
Brody Allen
Economics is nothing but a conspiracy theory, user. It's no more sound than any prognostication.
Bentley Butler
Ask Child B to give the flute to Child A on the condition that he teach child C how to use it so that one day their poor ass will have a marketable skill and be able to afford a flute of their own.
B gets the flute because without the concept of ownership, no one gets the flute.
It is not my place to judge who owns things because that would be stealing from B, and thieves make poor judges.
If B wants to give it to A, or sell it to A to recoup some of his families efforts in making the flute (and even in a "post scarcity blah blah fantasy" deliveries still need to happen) and delivering it then that is up to B.
Gommunism can't even win by analogy because it actually can't exist. It's a belief in nothing and nihilism, which reflects the attitudes of all of its retarded followers.
Ian Ross
> how things usually work when tie government fucks off
Jace Adams
I break the flute to teach them to work out their problems themselves instead if turning to a parent figure in the hope that an outside authority will force their personally-preferred outcome. Then I burn down this goddamned storybook from within to protest any sort of pedagogy that infantilizes citizens and parentalizes the government: the state is not your fucking daddy, and you are not children of the state.
Lucas Moore
Cut it into 3 equal parts.
Hunter Mitchell
Finance is not economics user, they are totally different animals
Joseph Rodriguez
It goes to whoever is strong enough to defend it.
Jace Garcia
Child B has to pay child A for child C's lessons. But then child B will receive 10% of profits child C makes playing the flute.
Gabriel Martin
A should get it. The only reason Children B and C want it is because Child A wants it. B's Claim is weak because we can assume that his family lost ownership of it by selling it, and that the flute is currently unowned or donated so you can make this moral decision, otherwise it wouldn't be a question in the first place. C doesn't even know why he wants it. It's still better than B's, assuming "because, then, you would have improved my lot in life immeasurably" means that he plans on learning how to play the flute. If that is the case, then C should get it. A already has a flute. If he's just putting it on a shelf or selling it, then fuck him.
Unless it is a really good flute, then A should keep it because you don't waste nice instruments on someone who can't play them.
Austin Carter
The the answer is to take the flute and then break it so that no one can enjoy it.
Joshua Sanders
Easy, the child who brings me the most candy will win the rights to the flute. They will run off and get their candy stashes and bring them to me. Every time one comes with candy I will tell them another child is slightly ahead of them. Then they will raid their parents pantries to bring me more candy. Eventually they will start doing favors for other children and parents in exchange for their candy. In order to keep track I will start issuing them with slips of paper with a candy exchange value attached to them. They will start bartering the slips with other children to trade toys for larger sums of candy as well as doing work for them for candy or circulating candy slips. When it grows large enough, I will start manufacturing candy slips without any physical candy backing them to increase trade in the growing candy economy while I loan out my, I mean "their" physical candy with interest rates attached to them to other children.
finally. as a father and step-father with grand children they must show a true desire for it. if they are unwilling to fight for it they not only don't need it. they have refused to entertain their father. 1 week in wonky box for them. answer is A if you haven't the stomach for combat sports.
>we can assume that his family lost ownership of it by selling it
Absolutely nothing in the premise suggests this
Grayson James
If B owns the company that made the flute, by extension if there was no property transfer B automatically already owns the flute. tl;dr Jews win
Josiah Cox
>"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" commie detected. the obvious answer is B, because it is his rightful property. doesn't matter who the fuck can play it or who needs it, it is his property. next.
Option d. Kill both of the nigger kids and the one white kid and take the flute to shove up your ass for pleasure.
Andrew Green
Trick question but the only answer is none.
>Child A may know how to play it OUT OF THE THREE but doesn't mean they should have it. Implying no one else knows how to play it in the world or no one is ever capable of learning?
>Child B you would think would but it's their family's company, not the child's. The kid could be disowned or might inherit the company someday but you don't know yet and it's true ownership is in child b's family.
>Child C just because you're poor doesn't meant you are owed anything.
Isaiah Howard
Initially the flute would belong to Child B.
However, Child B accepts the social contract that comes with living in society, which has decided that group cohesion is more important than enriching the individual. Therefore, the government assumes owenership of his flute (that Child B must consent to or risk punishment) and redistributes it to Child A and C.
The flute tax ensures that society continues to function.
>"Sort it out amongst yourselves you little cunts, it's none of my business"
Now why does OP consider himself to be some sort of god among men with the power and authority to decide how "the children", as he puts it, should act? Are you a psychopath OP?
