[anarchist23]

Three children are fighting over a flute. Who would you give it to? Why?


[center-img]http://i67.tinypic.com/2e6bvd4.jpg[/center-img]

[Saeko]

No one. Let them fight.

But if they were my children, I'd take it from all of them until they learned to share.

[Victoribus Spolia]

But if they were my children, I'd take it from all of them until they learned to share.

Yep.

No one. Let them fight.

Sometimes that is what you got to do.

BUT MY ANSWER IS: *Drum roll*

CHILD B

It doesn't matter if Child A can play it and it doesn't matter that Child C is poor.

The flute belongs to Child B.

If Child B wants to sell it to Child A that can use it, that should be Child B's decision.

If Child B wants to give it to Child C, that should be Child B's decision.

[Oxymandias]

It's not my concern to resolve a conflict between children.

@Victoribus Spolia

You realize that Child B is supposed to be the "communist" analogy right?

[Victoribus Spolia]

You realize that Child B is supposed to be the "communist" analogy right?

I am sure that was the intent, but Lockean theory of original appropriation would make the same conclusion.

something becomes your property when you both claim it in its unclaimed natural state and utilize it via the input of labor and investment.

So whether the child made the flute from an unclaimed piece of wood she found in the woods, or out of materials she purchased, by that process of appropriation conjoined to her input of labor, the flute is hers.

The other two views are entitlements, they have no legitimate claim to the flute, the person who appropriated the materials and input labor to make the flute, that is there flute.

Communists divide this, they see labor, not appropriation, as ownership.

For instance, if Child A had purchased the materials and paid Child B to only make the flute, the flute would belong to Child A.

A communist would disagree. They would say Child B should kill Child A and keep the flute and the money for themselves.

The leftist option is to give it to the poor kid, instead of the one who earned it. The fascist option is to give it to the person who is capable irrespective of whether they earned it.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

I don't think that's the communist argument. Communists argue that the value of a commodity is based on the amount of labor put into it. The higher the labor, the more value such a commodity has. Therefore, the argument isn't that Child A is wrong for paying Child B to make the flute. The argument is that Child A should pay Child B for the flute's proper value. It is also from this reasoning that communists argue that workers should take the full value of their labor. This is an abhorrently simple explanation of the labor theory of value so don't take my word on it.

[Victoribus Spolia]

I don't think that's the communist argument.

I am being facetious.

Communists argue that the value of a commodity is based on the amount of labor put into it. The higher the labor, the more value such a commodity has.

Correct. (which is terrible economics btw and ignores marginal utility)

Therefore, the argument isn't that Child A is wrong for paying Child B to make the flute. The argument is that Child A should pay Child B for the flute's proper value.

Except communists believe the Child B should control the means of production, not Child A. Your argument is just the argument of the average trade unionist.

But like I said, there is nothing in the example to tell me that Child B is necessarily a communist, she is the only one who has a claim to the flute.

Absent of other detail, it seems that she is one who both procured the materials and inputed labor, which is sufficiently a capitalist theory of ownership. She has a right to the flute.

Child A is not said to have paid anyone (that was my addition in a separate hypothetical); she is only saying that she has a right to it in virtue of her ability to utilize it, and Child C is only saying that he has a right to it because he is poor.

Both Child A and Child C have failed to demonstrate any right to the flute at all. They claim entitlement based on ability or lack, but have not proven a right to ownership.

[Rancid]

But if they were my children, I'd take it from all of them until they learned to share.

I employ this strategy with my kids. It works VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRYYY well.

"If you can't find a way to share it, the none of you can have it." They shape up REAAAAAAAAL fast.

[Oxymandias]

@Victoribus Spolia

Except communists believe the Child B should control the means of production, not Child A. Your argument is just the argument of the average trade unionist.

The means of production is owned by society and society would then democratically determine what to produce. Circulation of goods would go to where it's needed the most.

Also it's not my argument. I just don't like it when people criticize communism without understanding it.

[Godstud]

I would not give the flute to any of them. I would have Child B teach the other two to make flutes so that everyone could have one.

I assume Child A is representative of meritocracy?

[Sivad]

I am sure that was the intent, but Lockean theory of original appropriation would make the same conclusion.

something becomes your property when you both claim it in its unclaimed natural state and utilize it via the input of labor and investment.

Only if enough and as good is left in common for all.

Robert Nozick, in articulating a Lockean theory, discusses what he calls “the shadow of the [Lockean] proviso”: The property rights system as a whole must continue to leave enough and as good for others, or the system as a whole isn’t fully legitimate. It’s not enough that when rights first get going that they leave enough and as good for others, but this system must continue to do so over time.

So, even in Locke and Nozick, we have the view that a system of property rights has to meet a test on how it affects others. The rights aren’t legitimate unless they sufficiently benefit other people (or, perhaps, unless they don’t harm them relative to some baseline, though I’m not sure it makes a difference how we describe this).

Locke, Nozick, and the BHLs agree in the abstract about what it takes to justify a property regime. We just disagree about the particulars. We BHLs have more stringent views about how systems of property rights must work out for property regimes to be legitimate. (I’m not going to discuss why we do here.)

So, under certain circumstances, if we think the facts turn out the right way, Bleeding Heart Libertarians will advocate certain government social insurance programs. Does that mean we advocate having government steal people’s rightful property in order to help poor people? No. Instead, we’re saying that if certain facts obtain, then the stuff the government takes wouldn’t rightfully be yours in the first place.

Cf. Nozick: Suppose you acquire a waterhole without violating anyone’s rights. Now suppose, overnight, through no one’s fault, and for a reason no one could foresee, all the waterholes except yours dry up. Suppose your waterhole has more than enough water for everyone. Even Nozick doesn’t think everyone should just continue to regard the waterhole as yours, free to dispose of as you please. Instead, in light of the facts, your rights over the water have changed. (Nozick is himself puzzled as to just how your rights will change, but he’s pretty sure you must let people have the water at a reasonable price, at the very least.) It’s not that people can now take your water without your permission, or that you must give them your water at a price you didn’t choose. Rather, it might not even be rightfully yours anymore, even though it was rightfully yours when you first acquired it.

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/20 ... -property/

[Decky]

Child B of course, the working class are entitled to the full fruits of their labour. Standard socialist answer.

[colliric]

Child C is the one most likely not to have another flute.

Child B most likely already has another one or the materials to make at least one more, Child A definitely has one already (the one she learnt on).

However I would pay Child B to make another two if both him and Child A don't already have them.

If C doesn't have a flute:
I would give it to Child C, and compensate Child B. Even give him more than the flute is worth.

If B & C don't have flutes:
Give it to C and pay Child B to make one more.

If all three don't have flutes:
Give it to C and pay Child B to make 2 more.

[layman]

I don’t understand why anyone would take the flute from all of them considering child b made it.

Fairness is as important a lesson as sharing. A and c shouldn’t be trying to stake a claim at all though they can ask to borrow it.

Borrowing isn’t the question here.

[colliric]

I don’t understand why anyone would take the flute from all of them considering child b made it.

Fairness is as important a lesson as sharing. A and c shouldn’t be trying to stake a claim at all though they can ask to borrow it.

Borrowing isn’t the question here.

B made it, but C needs it... Pay off B extra and give it to C. B can make another one or likely already made more than one. Give him money(or Ice Cream or chocolate) to make another one. And if A doesn't already have one, pay B to make it too.

If you don't like my solution, your a tight ass. Pay B ask him to make another one and give the first one to C.

B needs to learn to have reasonable charity sometime.

I don't give a crap for the "only one can have a flute" solution. Pay B to make flutes for everyone if needed. C needs it the most, so he gets the original one. A needs it the least so she gets the last one.

[layman]

If b was growing food and c was starving you might have a point.

B isn’t a fucking slave. Even with pay forcing them to give up goods for a fixed price is slavary.

Is that what you are into. Child slavary ??!!

[colliric]

If b was growing food and c was starving you might have a point.

B isn’t a fucking slave. Even with pay forcing them to give up goods for a fixed price is slavary.

Is that what you are into. Child slavary ??!!

Kids can be bribed with enough ice cream and chocolate.....

It's not slavery if he does it and gets payed. I won't force him, I'd just keep going up till he says "ok".

I'd buy the flute somehow and then give it to C. Then bribe B to make more flutes....

Everyone will be pleased.

[SolarCross]

I listened to that podcast, it confirmed by suspicion that mutualists are among the most reasonable of anarchists. They are however still getting some things wrong, but the wrong is in their anarchism not their mutualism.

[layman]

@colliric you are cheating the question. In my opinion.

Sure though if you want to pay b. I hope b drives a hard bargain as it seems to be a sellers market ...

[B0ycey]

Child B. If the others want a flute they can make their own.