Who should have the flute and why? If B created the flute is that enough of a reason for her to own it?

Who should have the flute and why? If B created the flute is that enough of a reason for her to own it?

Attached: 1550401623148.jpg (960x720, 171.94K)

Other urls found in this thread:


B is the only one who has made an initial investment.

Yes. Now fuck off, unless you have something that allows us to go more in depth.

B, yes that is enough of a reason.
Getting into barter, payment, or laying more of a guilt-trip than A and C already have done onto child B to give up the Flute are all topics by themselves.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x800, 239.62K)

If it is her job to make flutes for customers and they paid her to make one then it is theirs. If B made it for herself it is hers.

Popular variant

Attached: 1550349749451.png (960x720, 332.01K)

Child A is a kike, what she's actually saying is:
>I'm the only one (((qualified))) to play the flute

A should get the flute. That's the National Socialist principle of the best man. B applies when A doesn't exist, but putting B over A leads to ruin and is represented by libertarian principles. C is represented by communist principles.

Apply this reasoning to production and economics and C is telling you that a factory belongs to all the poor people in a society because they are poor, which will lead to collapse. B is telling you that the factory belongs to the capitalists who invested in it, and this is all fine and good, except for when he either can't run the factory properly, mistreats his workers who play a part in building it, or betrays his race and people. Then A should be appointed in his place by the state, A being in this example a different capitalist who is ethically and ideologically competent in being loyal to his race, and functionally competent in being able to actually run the factory.

Those behind C, the communists, should be destroyed. Those behind B should be kept in check. It is well and good for B to reign true for the small property of individuals, but kikes can use B to try and do pilpul bullshit when it comes to large scale production and factories that depend on multiple people (this allows them to apply C in the end stage as the natural antidote to the failures of B). A represents the principle that the state upholds the destiny of the race and that it should remove those big capitalists who are not productive (mismanaging capitalists and fraudsters) or even destructive (such as kikes like Zuckerberg the tech capitalist jew and others).

A is a metaphor for the true grounding principle that all others must be measured against.

You're wrong. C is open kikery, and B is a good principle in the right setting (this is my farm that i work with my hands) that is easily bent to the kikes whim in the wrong setting (make your own social media goy we own dis, this is our banking system etc).

In my opinion, this post exemplifies the difference between this place and half chan.

Most of half chan argued for B. It is exceedingly rare to see posts of this detail and quality in 4/pol/

This is a corruption of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics on "the common good," and A is the answer Aristotle advanced as being correct for not only benefiting the individual but also contributing to the "common good," it is a form of collectivism in stark contrast to the collectivism of (C)ommunists, in that it benefits the tribe as a whole. And if taken on a national scale, then A is indeed the correct answer. But the shitty gabitalist bait of B is correct on the individual scale as it is more in the common good to have someone produce something, gaining experience in producing it, and then having access to what they produced so that it might be possible for them to learn the skill that is preventing them from also occupying position A.

In other words you can't just give all the resources of a society to the most elite and privileged people, that is not in the common good. There must be access to the opportunity for all to prove their merit or there is no meritocracy.

Anyway this isn't even the argument presented by Aristotle. It's just commie shit.

Why would B ever make another flute if you are just going to take it from her?

No, the solution is a free market one. A BUYS the flute from B, plays it at concerts where people pay to listen. C gets a fucking job.

The situation in this is weird.
If B has made the flute, why is it not in her possession?
Why am I the arbiter of who gets this flute?

1. If I was given this flute by B to give it to who is best suited to receive it; A will be given the flute.
2. If the flute was forcibly taken from B, it should be returned to her as it is the fruit of her labor. If then either A or C want it from her they can figure out a barter or payment for the flute.
3. If the flute was produced by B in good faith for the purpose of being given to me in order to give it to the best possible owner; A receives it again. She can produce music both B and C can enjoy but not produce themselves.
4. C has no claim to this flute unless he dedicates the time into learning to play it, putting him on par with A. If he would do so and A was willing to either have him receive it instead of her or assist him in playing it, only then he would be given the flute. All this is only if the flute was no stolen from B, if it was, read #2.

B, if you say anything else you're a retard.

Only real answer is A, because a flute is just a useless tool in the hands of the others, but an inspiration in the hands of A. Also B created goods through labor and gets compensated by A playing music. C is a nigger that deserves the rope.

Sell it and keep money for yourself. Jews asking for free gibs BTFO.

you put the flute in your butt OP, you faggot
you put the flute in your butt and then you gave it to little children to use
you're disgusting kill yourself reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Who gets to fly the fighter jet?
The engineers that built it or the pilots?

The flute is useless if there's no one to play it. It's just an object, a decoration.

sage hide and report

Attached: leftypol-follow-your-leader.jpg (936x792, 164.94K)

I'm sure she'd be overjoyed to hear that little shit playing her stolen flute.

The point of the thought experiment is to see if you believe in taking away hard-earned and self-made goods to redistribute to others.

If you think there's *any* reason to have your shit taken away from you, you're on the wrong board lad.

Attached: 3453265C-ED45-4BFF-9336-78B12C8FD751.jpeg (500x456, 78.13K)

Forgot my sage

If A can play the flute, doesn't she already have one? If this is just a regular flute why would she be given it if she already has one? I could see the argument if it was a special flute, but a run of the mill one? Just give back to B, or if she doesn't want it give it to C with instructions or a lesson for A if she agrees.

Attached: 1539935787156.png (379x205, 19.34K)

Looks like a perverted toy example based on some more elaborate ethical problem. Without knowing how important the flute and it being utilized is, or the cost and purpose of B even making the flute, it's hard to extrapolate the answer to any meaningful scale.

Unless the group can ascertain and agree that A's ability to utilize the resource is vital and will offset the cost of producing said resource and any present and future value that B gains from retaining the resource, B is an excellent default.
Maybe B is an aspiring flautist and made it for the express purpose of learning the instrument, or for financial gain. Give the flute back to who made it and let the group sort it out on their own.
Monopolies, trusts, cartels and predatory behavior might call for the occasional lynching and/or A, but B works well as a default.

Why is the listener tasked with reappropriating the resource, anyway?

i let the kids fight over it
this is the only true answer

let the little brats spill blood for it, let the victor claim the spoils

Attached: Conan-the-Barbarian.jpg (1035x1300, 203.87K)

I dont know about you fucksers, but I'm listening to Ren-chon play her little flute. I would craft as much flutes as she wanted. Sage for obvious leftypork thread.

Attached: renchon.jpg (454x266, 45.15K)



Sage negated, faggot.

The answer is A.

I give B back her flute.

Then I cut a switch and whip the other two niggers for attempted stealing. I also beat their failures of parents.

Who get's to be the authority on who gets it?
Poorly worded.

You build it, you keep it.
If you're paid to build it, you don't get to keep it.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (637x64, 24.78K)

Feigning authority like A is typically kike.
C is a pure nigger: a worthless beggar.

The flute belongs to b, the other two don't have the right to take it from her. Unless we're missing information, the answer is pretty clear.

Attached: fea827eb6c46b58463c3a6888ebc57279313fc29_hq.jpg (640x360, 33.49K)

You think there can be an argument here?

B is the only correct answer.

B spent her time and money in creating the flute. If A wants it, she can find some way to compensate B for her efforts.

Niggers work in entry level manufacturing and build shit.

It doesn't mean they have the capacity to learn how to use them.

or laying more of a guilt-trip than A and C already have done onto child B to give up the Flute
are all topics by themselves.
Did the Engineers provide all the materials (as child B)?
Is the Jet going to be TAKEN from the Engineers (as child B) with no mention of compensation?
Each Variable is a Topic by itself.



Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x781 684.07 KB, 915.77K)

Also correct!

Attached: fdf3b43cdc8bd5e4c507db27ea04611d4252ed42a23dabd42070574173cc88de.jpg (680x425, 37.44K)

Fuck off back to reddit with your ifunny shit


The end product is not a flute, but music. A and B are both contributors to this production. Giving it to B only benefits B. Giving it to C only benefits C. Giving it to A benefits A, B and C, who all get to hear music.

Naturally B would be compensated by A in a free market, but as this scenario is badly written (how was it taken off of B in the first place? Are 'you' the parent, representing a state that confiscates all goods before redistributing them?), you cant go very deep with it. It's got too many assumptions and doesn't really match up well to how real economies exchange goods (B would start with the flute, and naturally give it to A for something in return; perhaps just the music would be enough, perhaps not.) Basically it's a bad analogy that I assume was written by a memeager to le epic troll libs xD

So what you're saying is that (((natsoc))) and (((communism))) are two sides of the same coin? Big gov puts a gun to your head and takes your property "for the greater good", the only difference being the definition of "greater good".


But none of the kids employed her to build it nor asked her. Both see themselves literally entitled to other people's labor with no compensation and are willing to use force to rob. A and C are a kike and a nigger respectively.

Technically B owns it. In a free market, she can sell it to A, but A has no innate right to just have it simply because they can either buy or use it. C is straight socialism, he doesn't deserve anything because being poor isn't some kind of virtue.

It's like you don't realize you are B about to be robbed by A under false authority.

Speaking of kikes and niggers
Akike: "I should get the West. I'm the only one here who can rule it. And after all, the point of the goyim is to serve The Chosen Ones. The other two are dirty goys, so why should they keep anything?"
Beuropean: "I made the West. I provided the materials for it. I spent generations of time and effort making it. The West is the fruit of my labour. How could you possible take this from me and give it so someone else?"
Cnigger: "Ooga booga muh dick gibsmedat bixnood"

Is this better oh Lord of the Interwebs.
Were u offended?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (728x546 527.15 KB, 292.92K)

So, can I come over your house and eat all of your food? I can chew, digest and shit faster than you, so It's okay. It's what Hitler would have wanted.

this is exactly what I was thinking about

Attached: dc39edb2b02e14ece1c9b18f281bc0accd9027713a3c5ec6bdcd068962eceef4.jpg (1000x1412, 299.03K)

You cant fucking fool me, its the same lying little shit with a different wig on.

Attached: what went wrong.jpg (765x994, 160.67K)

That would only have worked if A had mentioned the Holocaust and how having the flute reminds her of how she survived Auschwitz even though she is only 7 years old. Giving her that flute would be European reparations for antisemitism. Not giving her that flute would be anudda shoah and really antisemitic, goy.

I like how every comparison chart ever always paints capitalism as gods gift to the world and glosses over the fact that capitalism has to constantly have government intervention propping it up with subsidies (lol farmers) and laws preventing the formation of monopolies. You'd think everyone was a CEO by the description of it.

Also lol that straw man


Bad analogy. The husband did not produce the wife with his own raw materials and labor.

C- see me after class.

This question is a trap. All three of the answers can be used by commies to justify their position.

Exactly this. Suggesting that the free-market is going to solve the problems of the (((modern world))) is either delusional or dishonest. The capitalists are so ideologically defunct that they are selling the white race's future for a profit.

Attached: bypass.jpg (549x598 454 B, 211.02K)

but that isnt how any of those systems work, even remotely.

Clearly Child B is lying in an attempt to steal Child A's flute. You libertarian suckers fell right into here trap too. She played you like a damn fiddle.

Its Happening

You're not as smart as you think you are.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Not if NeetSocs want free gibs.

How about we fucking don't decide to redistribute it. Every choice is the socialist answer. Whoever has the flute decides what is done with it. Fuck this thread for fucks sake.

Capitalism is a self organizing system that inevitably eats itself alive without an outside force to perpetually kick the can down the road.

But why use real world history and events to inform our thinking. Let me guess. You also think that REAL communism has never been tried, right?

NatSoc would either:
1. compensate B for their decision to give the flute to A, or
2. have A compensate B for the flute.

I know your being ironic here, but the nazis actually advocated for this kind of cuckoldry.


NS economics.

Child B obviously.

The abolition of unearned wealth is literally part of the 25 Point Programme of the NSDAP. Specifically, item 11. The craftsman who made the flute has engaged in honest labour and is entitled to the value of the flute, because that value represents his labour. Child A aka the eternal jew demands the flute without making a fair exchange of value for it and is thus attempting to accumulate unearned wealth - to steal child B's labour and make child B into a slave, as the jew desires to do to all gentiles.

Attached: hitler timeline.jpg (600x600, 24K)

If child B is allowed to keep the flute he made, he would have the option to trade it with Child A.
You dont need to be involved to arrange that.

This is only a paradox for humanists and other degenerate heathens. In a Christian society, B keeps possession of the flute, but gladly lends it to A to play. Likewise if they want flutes of their own, B gives A and C jobs in her workshop so they can earn them. Then in gratitude, A teaches both B and C how to play.
All other systems are merely inviting jewish corruption and greed.

Attached: 3112018204933.jpg (880x944, 133.43K)

Nice reading comprehension

The only male representation is the useless C. Men are craftsmen. B should be a boy.

A represents artistry and beauty, feminine qualities that disappear when B cannot enable them. B is the masculine, a creator, a steward, capital and labor, and the things B creates only reach their fullest potential in cooperation with A. C is the primal, the animalistic, unevolved yet entirely guided by evolution. C is unskilled with no desire to become skilled. The most useful societal purpose C can serve is as a beast of burden handling mundane tasks to free up time for A and B.

We must give the flute back to B and strongly encourage B and A to cooperate, then suggest B craft a rope and A tie it in order the hang C from the nearest branch.

Attached: 2d6f426b198ac91cfaa559517a45cc9ebf12ed9c796a080646fb3f4789ecdb9a.jpg (240x280, 11.64K)

In the scenario described, B should keep the flute, because logically she would be the one who was the owner of said flute before the conflict, what would make it a form of theft.
If it is an economic analogy, which it shouldn’t because it’s retarded, A should keep for the several reasons previously described by other anons.

Unless B is going to learn how to use it, give it to A. Teach B to appreciate someone using what she made and to appreciate the music which would have otherwise not existed.
Like, thanks B, but your flute is just a paperweight unless someone's using it. Oh yeah and fuck that C nigger.

An who decides the compensation sum?
The B? Then why are NeetSocs needed if he can sell it just fine on his own?
The A? That's legalized robbery, the NeetSoc is an accomplice.
The NeetSoc? Great, he managed to commit a double robbery upsetting both sides simultaneously and both hate his guts now.

The only truly just exchange is the free exchange. It is also the only one where neither deficits nor massive rebellions of people robbed by the state happen.
Free market or hunger and war, this is backed by the whole written history of humanity ever.

Thus dubs Hitler got it right.

Child A. The flute is useless otherwise.

Give it to child A without compensation for child B, and there will never again be a flute made. Or anything else.

You aren't as smart as you think you are.

And does anyone have the Original ?

Who should a farmer's produce be given to? The farmer, or someone else?

What happens when you give the farmer's crop away?

A should get the flute, and B should be compensated for her work somehow. For example, B seems to be fond of making flutes, so maybe negotiating with A to have her give B some sort of shiny flute-making tools would be ideal.

B would stop making flutes if you just rip the flute from her; it's disastrous to give anyone but B the flute if B doesn't at least get something worthwhile in return. But we want A to have a flute, because A would use the flute best. If we have a free market solution, it is possible that C will wind up with the flute - he seems to be an utter fucktard who would blow his money on a flute he can't use.

False premise, the question is asking what "we" would do, introducing a fourth figure, but it's forcing us into the authoritative position of the state. "We" have no moral or otherwise authority to dictate what should be done, therefore the proper question is, what *will* they do naturally?

At that point, every question and answer revolves around the desires of the individual. Therefore, since the question posits that the children are "fighting" over who should be given the flute, the only correct answer is that it should go to whichever is strongest. Thus we have a perfect encapsulation of nature's law.

IF you don't give Flute to A she will use her power and influence to destroy your Flute making business and if you don't give Flute to C C whines to A and Spreads propaganda that B is an Evil racist greedy Slave driver for not Giving away her hard earned work can't into MERIT something. Something. Jews did It
C AND C enablers get Gassed

Without her there would be no flute to fight over.
Without her this test wouldn't exit. Without her this thread would exist…
You know what. I'd kill all three and take the flute.

If a chief makes you supper from the ingredients you bought, did the chief steal the ingredients from you?

I suppose a question that comes to my mind is why did B make a flute she can't play? Did she intend to sell/trade it, did she intend to learn to play it, is she just going to shove it up her ass or some other equally wasteful and/or useless thing? If the first two, then yes, give it to B, if the last one, then perhaps simply being able to make a flute does not also automatically also grant the responsibility to posses the flute if she can not use the item in a satisfactory productive manner. Just sticking the flute on a shelf to gather dust because of a need to possesse an item that is otherwise useless to you is also rather jew-y.

Also where did B get the materials and tools to make the flute, and how did she gain the knowledge to make flutes? Shouldn't the person who provided those also have a say in the matter or have a clam to the product?

Bullshit. B made the fuicking thing. If that little whore A wants a flute she can buy it from B (if B wants to sell it) or ask B to make her one.
It's B's property to do with as she pleases. And if that means keep it to herself, destroy it with a hammer, give it away, or sell it, then so be it. She made the damn thing. She brought the damn thing into existence making the flute a reality. Without her their would be no flute.

You give back to it's creator to do with it as he/she pleases.

A should just buy it from B, with the government reducing taxes on the transaction to incentivize cultural and economic growth.

But together A and C are stronger than B. B will always lose.

It appears that B is the owner of the flute, and thus she should get to keep it.

Let's assume B is a responsible capitalist…
B creates a logo and brands her flute
B rents her flute to A and teaches C to make flutes as an apprentice
A makes money as a famous musician, and other kids want to emulate her
C gathers wood and uses B's tools to make two more flutes
B offers A the ability to buy the flute rather than keep renting it, because she is a responsible capitalist and not a jew
C gives a flute to B, and B lets C keep one for himself as payment.
B and C sell more flutes to other kids who want flutes like A's

Nuh uh, because if we call it "National Socialism" suddenly the massive powerful central government only acts for the good of the people, due to… reasons.

Correct, and you only need to step in if B is irresponsible.

If production of flutes is off-shored to China A and C can enjoy cheap flutes. And B has more free time. Win

That depends on whether or not I gave him permission to do so.
What if I wanted to cook my own meal? What if I wanted to sell them? What if I didn't like what he made? What if he gave me an unreasonably small portion and ate the rest? What if I wanted to preserve those ingredients for a time of famine?
For it to not be theft it must be agreed on in advance.

Just to bring religion into this philosophical argument: consider God, the creator. Since he created you, is it "right" that said God could determine your faint or even make you suffer a fate worse than death purely on the basis of being your creator? Likewise we could go into the abortion argument. At what point does a creator's right over their creation end? There is no true answer (since we lack an objective heavenly law or something like that), however, each individuals views should be consistent. Therefore, their answer to the above should be consistent with their answer to the question posed by OP.

We treat (our) people with higher autonomy and respect because we are (our) people. That's why it's on a different scale than non-human/inanimate property.

If the flute was something necessary for survival like a plow, ax or gun then for the benefit of the group A should have it. A flute is an optional luxury so B keeps it.

Buck off, kike slider

>>>/oven/ them all because this is a yid slide thread.
Any non-saging replies in this thread can go in first to warm it up to a working temperature. Fucking niggers like you turned this board into shit.

No you faggot, I didnt create this as a slide thread. Not everything you want or that's on your agenda is going to be posted here.

I'm trying to promote discussion here, take your meds nigger.

Oh. Sage negated.