2
138

[–] green_man 2 points 138 points (+140|-2) ago 

B should rent or sell the flute to A. C can go die in a gutter because he's useless.

1
30

[–] 12154868? 1 points 30 points (+31|-1) ago 

Exactly. A and B are part of a community where value is created and used to maximize the quality of life for both A and B, as well as the community of which they are part. C is a parasite.

3
17

[–] cyks 3 points 17 points (+20|-3) ago 

Child A: You steal the instrument from child B and give it to child A. Child C watches and learns. You rule all children though merciless chaos as child C's offspring quietly trim the fat and weak.

Child B: You do nothing. Child A can continue to play an instrument made of tears that Child C can not afford to cry. The loudest cries are met with flute squads.

Child C: You steal the flute from Child B and give it to Child C. You tell child C to beat child A and B if they do not double the community's flute production immediately. You wait 20 years and now there are more children, all are as poor as child C once was, except for child C's offspring. They are now the ruling class and eat all the food. They play all the instruments in large numbers choreographed around wartime imagery, stern high-stepping marching, and tanks made of flutes. Your children rule for thousands of years.

0
0

[–] syntaxaxe 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Sure, in a society with gibs programs, Child C remains a parasite. But his needs can be used for the betterment of others and himself -

Child B could see that Child C needs money, offer to train him to make flutes for a cut of his profits, and now they're both better off. Having more minds working on developing flutes is likely to create more innovation and efficiency, so Child A will probably get better flutes in the future. Everyone can benefit. It is only because handout welfare exists that Child C has any incentive to remain a parasite, rather than becoming productive.

1
21

[–] TheTrigger 1 points 21 points (+22|-1) ago 

The very thing that I cam here to say. Although, instead of rent, I was gonna go with, "A and B should figure out an amicable agreement whereby B can supply A with flutes, as obviously they both have a lot to gain from each other." B could start a flute selling business, to A types. You know, like the real world does. As their elder, you could help them establish the most effective mechanisms by which this could be achieved, instead of simply choosing for them what to do with their own goddamned shit.

C clearly needs to get his shit together. Maybe he could befriend B and learn how to make some fucking flutes, or A to learn how to play them. Instead of sitting on his lazy ass and asking for gibs.

1
11

[–] gazillions 1 points 11 points (+12|-1) ago 

"Maybe he could befriend B and learn how to make some fucking flutes, or A to learn how to play them. Instead of sitting on his lazy ass and asking for gibs."

That is exactly they way it works when you don't drown them in the welfare attitude of entitlement, and keep the social workers far away from them.

0
3

[–] Gargilius 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

...and child A could provide flute concerts to child B as payment for the rent/purchase of the flute, and everybody - that matters - is happy.

Also, fuck child C.

8
-4

1
2

[–] Cat-hax 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

thought the same, except if B is feeling generous and maybe wants to make a friend B could gift it to A.

1
1

[–] HeavyBrain 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

Its cool aslong C pays the rent on time, then he can have it.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 45 points (+46|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
3

[–] IShouldNotTalk 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Damn you Swedes are hardcore.

0
6

[–] Diggernicks 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Best answer is best.

0
1

[–] Derpfroot 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

If I were muslim I would take the children an hero because I'm worthless.

4
25

[–] ilovepussy 4 points 25 points (+29|-4) ago 

I wouldn't give it to any of these whinny brats. If anyone, the person who made it should be able to keep it, and nobody should be able to take it away. The fact that "B" isn't saying "Fuck You!, you can't have my flute!" vs. trying to argue with a socialistic authority is why none of them should have it.

1
19

[–] DeltaBravoTango 1 points 19 points (+20|-1) ago 

If B made the flute herself, not as an employee of someone else, then it's hers.

0
17

[–] DeltaBravoTango 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

It won't improve C's life immeasurably because he can't play it.

0
31

[–] shadow332 [S] 0 points 31 points (+31|-0) ago 

You mean like a university education for a ghetto nig on scholarship?

0
3

[–] TrumpTheGodEmperor 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Bruh...

0
1

[–] no-hurry-no-pause 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It won't improve C's life immeasurably

Of course it would. Upon getting it, C would immediately sell to A and the money would improve his life. (At B's cost of course.)

2
11

[–] WitnesstheSalt 2 points 11 points (+13|-2) ago  (edited ago)

That's a flawed premise right there, because it doesn't address a major issue with Child B. Child B made the flute, but who OWNS the flute? Was the kid working for someone else who paid for her labor? The way the premise is presented it seems like they're trying to duck the issue of ownership entirely in favor of some assumed socialist bullshit.

With the limited information at hand, I have to assume Child B owns the flute, and can do with it as she see fit.

0
3

[–] McFluffy 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

duck the issue of ownership entirely in favor of some assumed socialist bullshit

well yeah, if you presented the truth correctly the left would instantly fall apart. the left's entire stance on anything that they take is always rooted in emotions. why should we take care of illegal immigrants? because it makes both the left and immigrants feel good. point out that doing this will eventually drain the economic supplier so that everyone will now be starving makes everyone go right wing.

0
2

[–] RandomGoater 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It does say child B provided the resources for the flute.

0
0

[–] WitnesstheSalt 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

My issue is it doesn't say what happened to get the flute from Child B to whoever has it now. Did Child B exchange ownership of the flute for something else, or was the flute simply taken by authority?

1
10

[–] Guy_Justsome 1 points 10 points (+11|-1) ago 

No one has the authority to redistribute flutes.

Kill OP for asking the question in the first place.

1
1

[–] feral-toes 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

That is the best answer. Once the question gets asked it is inevitable that people will fight to get to be the person that has the authority to redistribute flutes. In the terrible fighting that follows Child B will be killed and the flute destroyed.

It is much better to kill the OP and pretend the question was never asked. That keeps the death toll down and if we really want a flute we can make something that Child B wants and offer it to her in return for making a second flute.

0
2

[–] no-hurry-no-pause 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Kill OP for asking the question in the first place.

That is the best answer.

It's not because OP isnt a single guy, but roughly 50% of the population. As soon as you kill A, immediately the next marxist snake will step up and ask the same question. You'd have to do a LOT of butchering to stop that question from being asked.

if we really want a flute

They dont care about flutes, and never did. The power to redistribute is ALL they want and always wanted. And and if you have 10 people who cant tell shit from food and only one guy making flutes, it is quite easy to rally the shit eaters to enslave the flute maker.

In reality, you dont have one A, one B and one C, but one B, ten As and 100 Cs. That imbalance is what makes marxism so attractive as a power-acquiring strategy.

Just think about it.

It you ever wanted to get power over a large number of people, what would be the mathematically easiest way to do it? Bribing the 100:1 have-nots with the outnumbered haves' money is the easiest way. And even if the top 1% of haves leave, then you just proclaim the next 1% as the target. You can never run out of the haves. And even if you do, you can easily keep power by preventing some of the have-nots from becoming haves by hard work or saving.

Thats why jews tend to advocate for marxism for goys even though they dont believe in marxism for jews. It is simply a common sense way to get into positions of power, and they are intelligent enough to recognize it.

1
6

[–] lordbeatlejuicethe1 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

fuck them the flute is mine

load more comments ▼ (48 remaining)