Property Rights

>sale
There's your problem right there.

Whoever has the power to enforce their claim to the shirt.

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.

Yeah you can presume that whichever two don't get the shirt get compensated with money instead.

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.

See above

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.

a Mormon, since that white shirt is part of their magic undergarments

>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

A, easy.

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

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?

C. The shirt was the product of his labor while the other two are mere profiteering "investors"

>Under Feudalism
>The person who owns the property the cotton was grown on
>property
>feudalism
>based on territory
lol

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.

> 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.

Is it not territorial?

Just finished the Conquest of Bread a few days ago. It's kinda what got me thinking about this.

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".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feudal_land_tenure_in_England

That's all just fucking spooky bullshit.

Thread overrr.

the person who negotiated its existence

minus what he negotiated for it

no, stealing isnt preforming labour

you can have things if you preform labour

Stealing is stealing. Doesn't matter whether you perform labor or not, you're still not allowed to steal other people's things.

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

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).

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

nope
it is enforced by physical violence aka mafia