![t-shirt[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/VdzOef9.jpg "t-shirt[1].jpg")
>Person A owns a machine for making clothes
>Person B owns some cotton
>Person C uses Person B's cotton and Person A's machine to make a shirt
Who should primarily have the rights to the use or sale of the shirt?
I don't know.
Whoever is the strongest. Might is right.
C created the shirt, so C. Presumably A and B were compensated for the use of their property.
>>1399783
Did person C steal person B's cotton and sneak up to person A's machine without permission? Then an unbiased forth party would have to decide the worth of the cotton and time used on the machine, taking the unlawful use of those item into account, which person C would be obliged to give to Person A and B. If it had happened in a lawful manner the contracts between the persons would dictate who has the rights to the sale and use.
>>1399783
Wait, did Person C steal the cotton and machine or what? If not, surely there's some agreement worked out in advance.
>>1399783
Elaborate OP, does there have to be ONE person who gets all of the profit?
>>1399783
C who also compensates A and B
>>1399783
It goes like this
cotton>design<cotton>machine<design<cotton>design<machine>cotton<design>cotton
They're all equal at that stage.
Without the cotton the design and machine would be rendered useless.
Without the machine, what can you use cotton for?
And without a design, what will you use the machine for?
-so we must look at which part will benefit the majority.
Case A)
If we gave the right of the shirt to the cotton farmer, it would give both the designer and the machine-worker an incentive to work harder. As they would have a less % of the revenue.
Which means we would have more effective machines + design that cost less cotton per unit, as to save the material and make more profit.
Case B)
We would give the majority right to the machineworker.
This would give an incentive for the cotton farmer and designer to become more effective.
Problem is just, we don't know if the cotton farmer uses machines or labour. If the second is true, he would probably pay less per ounce of cotton and place a higher monthly quote of cotton per worker. Which would be a catastrophe.
But we would still get effective designs, which meant that perhabs if the designs are effective enough, it would have no negative or positive effect on the farmer.
Case C)
The designer gets the majority rights.
Basicly case A and B together - the designer part.
Would result in something bad and something good.
>RESULTS
Case A) = 2 goods.
Case B) = 1 potential good/bad + 1 good
Case C) = 1 potential good/bad + 1 good
= Case A) the cotton farmer should have the majority rights.
>and apperently I am the logical type of person, sad :(
>>1399882
Why wouldn't the person getting the majority rights have an interest to cut costs to make a larger profit? The incentive would still be there.
>>1399783
>sale
There's your problem right there.
Whoever has the power to enforce their claim to the shirt.
>>1399783
You didn't give enough information.
If A, B, and C are all willing participants, then the answer is whatever they agreed upon beforehand. It's not complicated.
>>1399803
Yeah you can presume that whichever two don't get the shirt get compensated with money instead.
>>1399804
There isn't any stealth or anything. The shirt is produced upon some sort of agreement. My question is what agreement they should come to to be the most just.
>>1399822
See above
>>1399827
No. I was expecting answers along the lines of "one person gets the newly produced shirt, and then compensates the other two with money."
Your answer can differ from that, though. Maybe you believe that one of the three shouldn't get anything. In which case, explain.
>>1399783
a Mormon, since that white shirt is part of their magic undergarments
>>1399783
>Person C buys the cotton from Person B
>Person B rents (or sells) the machine to Person C
>Person C uses his newly acquired items to make a shirt
>Person C sells product to Person D
>>1399783
A, easy.
>>1399783
ok so within your example person a and b havent done any work so why would they have the right to benefit from teh production of the shirt? if person A built the machine, and person b picked the cotton than fair enough they should gain from it, but as it stands in yor example they have done nothing and therefore deserve nothing
>>1399783
person C should go to prison for stealing cotton and trespassing
the shirt should be sold and the proceeds pay for the cotton stolen from person B and any resources used by the machine owned by person A including depreciated capital costs
The shirt belongs to the state who will tax the electricity used by the machine and the sale and purchase of the cotton and then shirt.
Depends
Under Feudalism
The person who owns the property the cotton was grown on
Under capitalism
The person who owns the machine
Under state capitalism
The State
Under Socialism
The cotton grower and the shirt maker unite to take the machine owner's machine as he has made millions off that machine by forcing the cotton grower and the shirt producer to work for wages below their value.
Under Communism
There is no ownership of the shirt, the shirt belongs to the wearer. There is no sale, all things are made to be distributed to those who wish to have them
Did somebody say property?
>>1399783
C. The shirt was the product of his labor while the other two are mere profiteering "investors"
>>1400191
>Under Feudalism
>The person who owns the property the cotton was grown on
>property
>feudalism
>based on territory
lol
>>1400136
So you're free to steal from someone as long as they didn't personally make it?
assuming we respect the right to property, the individuals themselves ought to find a deal they all can agree to instead of some external authority like some theorycrafters on a chinese cartoon imageboard. No set of three individuals would probably find the same agreement. Some might not find any at all, so no t-shirt is produced, and nothing happens, to the lament of everybody.
>>1400084
> My question is what agreement they should come to to be the most just.
Currently in the process of reading Conquest of Bread by Kropotkin. In that spirit:
We expropriate person A and B of their belongings by compensating them in some respectable manner and declare the machine and the cotton the property of all*. Anybody can then use the machine to produce garments as long as cotton is readily available. The three people together (or anybody) then produce as many t-shirts as they require, and when their needs are met, they start to produce t-shirts for the collective, and no prize is charged for their products, the same way nobody else in that system charges any prizes. As soon as their community's need for t-shirts is met, they lay off their work, and pursue other things.
* Kropotkin argues the fact that the machine even exist is greatly thanks to the collective effort by many people who came before person A, like the physicists who discovered electricity and figured out how to put it to use, countless engineers who improved the machine's design during the years, and miners toiling in the mines to extract the raw materials necessary for that particular machine. So an individual claiming ownership of the machine is just ridicoulus, and the thing ought to be owned collectively, like all means of production.
>>1400243
Is it not territorial?
![index_centre_02[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/IM8pnCb.jpg "index_centre_02[1].jpg")
>>1400254
Just finished the Conquest of Bread a few days ago. It's kinda what got me thinking about this.
>>1400264
Not it's based on persons, vows and allegiances. The property rights on thing growing or being on a certain territory would have been part of additional "treaties".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_land_tenure_in_England
That's all just fucking spooky bullshit.
Thread overrr.
>>1399783
the person who negotiated its existence
minus what he negotiated for it
>>1400250
no, stealing isnt preforming labour
you can have things if you preform labour
>>1400401
Stealing is stealing. Doesn't matter whether you perform labor or not, you're still not allowed to steal other people's things.
>>1400413
so your saying the example presumes that the cotton is being stole, the machine certianly isnt. well if person b produced the cotton they should be compensated but that wasnt clearly stated, as i pointed out
>>1400478
So if they bought it instead of producing it themselves that makes it okay to steal from them? You sound like a nigger(in the worst sense of the word).
>>1399783
property ownership is a social construct not a physical one
private ownership is a fallacy that permits disproportionate power misallocation
can one person physically use an entire lake?
can one person drink an entire lake?
can one person eat all the fish of the baikal?
can one person physically use an entire oil pit?
but one person can use mental fallacies to claim ownership of resources that are physically not theirs.
thus enslaving others into supporting his power over others
>>1402440
nope
it is enforced by physical violence aka mafia
