You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] 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.


[–] 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.


[–] 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.


[–] 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.


[–] 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.


[–] 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.


[–] 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.


[–] Mylon 8 points -4 points (+4|-8) ago 

So you're saying A or B should give free training to C? The proper capitalist solution is that C isn't necessary and they should be discarded. Then the phonograph comes around and A becomes unnecessary so they should be discarded too. And because A isn't around, B is unnecessary so let's just discard them too. No more problems ever!


[–] 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.


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

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