The Two Laws of All Civilization?

[FirstAscent]

The Two Laws of All Civilization

1) Do all that you have agreed to do.

2) Do not encroach upon another's person or property.

This shall be the whole of the law.

Not really clear on the above.

Let's say MoonShadow lives in a house that has access via Blueberry Street. Next to him is a large lot owned by MysteriousMan. MysteriousMan brings in earthmoving equipment one day, and commences grading. Up goes a factory, shipping and receiving docks, and machinery for metal stamping, operated by compressed air. The machinery and compressors run all day and night. Trucks come and go all night long.

MysteriousMan never signed any contracts with MoonShadow. He never entered into any agreements with MoonShadow. Nonetheless, MoonShadow's life is now miserable. He attempts to retain legal counsel and file a lawsuit through the biggest private court system there is. Along the way, he discovers that his court of choice happens to have MysteriousMan as a big customer - I mean, they do a lot of business with MysteriousMan. Bummer.

Anyway, as it turns out, MysteriousMan is one of those semi rare types who just doesn't care about respecting the rights of others. I personally couldn't just do that to a neighbor, but you know how it goes. Some people can and do.

Guess what? MysteriousMan, being the big conglomerate he is, naturally saw fit to have one of his companies buy Blueberry Street prior to building his factory. It only makes sense. Fortunately, MoonShadow has a ten year contract on the tolls and rates required to use the road. Unfortunately, the contract expires in six months. Bummer.

MoonShadow wants to move. Unfortunately, his home value is sliding like crazy, and he doesn't know exactly what to do. Court seems the only option.

As it turns out, MysteriousMan is probably even a bigger asshole than you can imagine. You see, it's just not profitable to pay out to every resident who puts up a fuss - there are just too many of them. He employs a number of strategies:

- Don't pay at all. I mean, what's going to happen? Are men in blue suits going to show up and kidnap him? That's not acceptable! How dare he be forced to pay for doing what he wants on his own land! It's as if he's being regulated.

- Sometimes a beheaded head shows up in the refrigerator of the most annoying and bothersome individuals. It's just business - don't take it personally.

- Sometimes, he'll just buy your property, at 66 percent its former value. Just go away.

Let's take a look at what MysteriousMan has done here. He makes a lot of noise. His trucks create potholes, make the street unsafe, and make noise. But that's not aggression. It's not trespassing. And regarding the trucks - it's his street. As for the noise, it doesn't really affect people beyond a certain range, so there isn't much opportunity for a class action lawsuit. What about a boycott? Won't work. MysteriousMan sells his stuff on the other side of the world through a different name and company.

As for the beheaded head? Well, as it turns out, it just happened to be an acquaintance of MoonShadow's, whom certain individuals noticed some extremely angry words transpire between the two the day before. Scary stuff.

Anyway, MysteriousMan is a fictional character that embodies a lot of elements from real people and organizations out there in the real world.

[1715512361]

1715512361

[1715512361]

1715512361

[1715512361]

1715512361

[1715512361]

1715512361

[1715512361]

1715512361

[hugolp]

I know what you are trying to say: MysteriousMan is a metaphore for the government!

[FirstAscent]

I know what you are trying to say: MysteriousMan is a metaphore for the government!

If you say so. Kind of interesting how he functions within the guidelines of MoonShadow's anti-government laws.

[iamzill]

The Two Laws of All Civilization

1) Do all that you have agreed to do.

2) Do not encroach upon another's person or property.

This shall be the whole of the law.

Not really clear on the above.

Let's say MoonShadow lives in a house that has access via Blueberry Street. Next to him is a large lot owned by MysteriousMan. MysteriousMan brings in earthmoving equipment one day, and commences grading. Up goes a factory, shipping and receiving docks, and machinery for metal stamping, operated by compressed air. The machinery and compressors run all day and night. Trucks come and go all night long.

MysteriousMan never signed any contracts with MoonShadow. He never entered into any agreements with MoonShadow. Nonetheless, MoonShadow's life is now miserable. He attempts to retain legal counsel and file a lawsuit through the biggest private court system there is. Along the way, he discovers that his court of choice happens to have MysteriousMan as a big customer - I mean, they do a lot of business with MysteriousMan. Bummer.

Anyway, as it turns out, MysteriousMan is one of those semi rare types who just doesn't care about respecting the rights of others. I personally couldn't just do that to a neighbor, but you know how it goes. Some people can and do.

Guess what? MysteriousMan, being the big conglomerate he is, naturally saw fit to have one of his companies buy Blueberry Street prior to building his factory. It only makes sense. Fortunately, MoonShadow has a ten year contract on the tolls and rates required to use the road. Unfortunately, the contract expires in six months. Bummer.

MoonShadow wants to move. Unfortunately, his home value is sliding like crazy, and he doesn't know exactly what to do. Court seems the only option.

As it turns out, MysteriousMan is probably even a bigger asshole than you can imagine. You see, it's just not profitable to pay out to every resident who puts up a fuss - there are just too many of them. He employs a number of strategies:

- Don't pay at all. I mean, what's going to happen? Are men in blue suits going to show up and kidnap him? That's not acceptable! How dare he be forced to pay for doing what he wants on his own land! It's as if he's being regulated.

- Sometimes a beheaded head shows up in the refrigerator of the most annoying and bothersome individuals. It's just business - don't take it personally.

- Sometimes, he'll just buy your property, at 66 percent its former value. Just go away.

Let's take a look at what MysteriousMan has done here. He makes a lot of noise. His trucks create potholes, make the street unsafe, and make noise. But that's not aggression. It's not trespassing. And regarding the trucks - it's his street. As for the noise, it doesn't really affect people beyond a certain range, so there isn't much opportunity for a class action lawsuit. What about a boycott? Won't work. MysteriousMan sells his stuff on the other side of the world through a different name and company.

As for the beheaded head? Well, as it turns out, it just happened to be an acquaintance of MoonShadow's, whom certain individuals noticed some extremely angry words transpire between the two the day before. Scary stuff.

Anyway, MysteriousMan is a fictional character that embodies a lot of elements from real people and organizations out there in the real world.

So let me get this straight, you're arguing that this noise-polluting, criminal-hiring, extortionist mega-conglomerate can survive for more than a quarter in the free market?

Without government bailouts this corporation won't last more than a month.

[FirstAscent]

So let me get this straight, you're arguing that this noise-polluting, criminal-hiring, extortionist mega-conglomerate can survive for more than a quarter in the free market?

Without government bailouts this corporation won't last more than a month.

Let's say he doesn't hire criminals. He's within his rights to buy the road and put his trucks on it day and night. He's within his rights to change the road contract upon expiration. It's not clear to me where the creation of noise represents trespassing, or destruction of property on MoonShadow's property. It's not clear to me if MoonShadow can win this case in court, given MysteriousMan's prior and extensive use of the bigger courts. And it sounds like everyone really wants to see this guy regulated.

[NghtRppr]

It's not clear to me where the creation of noise represents trespassing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id6glPCLm0E#t=29m15s

[FirstAscent]

It's not clear to me where the creation of noise represents trespassing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id6glPCLm0E#t=29m15s

Not really interested in watching videos.

[NghtRppr]

It's not clear to me where the creation of noise represents trespassing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id6glPCLm0E#t=29m15s

Not really interested in watching videos.

You really only need to watch a couple of minutes but if you don't want to learn anything, fine.

[Hawker]

It's not clear to me where the creation of noise represents trespassing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id6glPCLm0E#t=29m15s

If the first 30 seconds are anything to go by, he has no understanding of the law and has never lived in a city.  Noise is regulated like any other form of pollution.  To say that you have "homesteaded the noise" by creating noise pollution is bizarre.  If you want to make noise over a level that people find disturbing in their properties, you need to convince the local community that its in their interests to put up with it.

[JA37]

Can't wait to see where this is going.   

[AyeYo]

So let me get this straight, you're arguing that this noise-polluting, criminal-hiring, extortionist mega-conglomerate can survive for more than a quarter in the free market?

Without government bailouts this corporation won't last more than a month.

Why does that seem so far fetched?  It happens all the time.

Look up a little history of Latin America and see what corporations had going on down there.  They hired hit men to kill union bosses, sub-contracted for torture and kidnap of employees that disagreed with them, and many other such blatantly illegal/immoral activities.

How is the market going to punish them when 99.9995% of the people that comprise the market have no idea this stuff took place because they're scattered all over the world, but these events happened only in a specific area?  I bet YOU don't know the history I'm speaking of.  I bet YOU don't even know what company I'm referring to.  I bet YOU can't even find it on Google without knowing EXACTLY what you're looking for.  I'll give a hint, they're still around and thriving - without a single bailout.

[NghtRppr]

It's not clear to me where the creation of noise represents trespassing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id6glPCLm0E#t=29m15s

If the first 30 seconds are anything to go by, he has no understanding of the law and has never lived in a city.  Noise is regulated like any other form of pollution.  To say that you have "homesteaded the noise" by creating noise pollution is bizarre.  If you want to make noise over a level that people find disturbing in their properties, you need to convince the local community that its in their interests to put up with it.

This thread isn't about how the law currently is.

[FredericBastiat]

If the first 30 seconds are anything to go by, he has no understanding of the law and has never lived in a city.  Noise is regulated like any other form of pollution.  To say that you have "homesteaded the noise" by creating noise pollution is bizarre.  If you want to make noise over a level that people find disturbing in their properties, you need to convince the local community that its in their interests to put up with it.

I'd have to admit, even though I've read a few things about it (Rothbard), it does seem a bit esoteric. I can see homesteading an object or a parcel of land, but homesteading an activity seems to be a bit of a stretch.

Notwithstanding, I don't think an individual who wants to move into downtown Tokyo could reasonbly argue that the light and noise pollution could be curbed just because he's annoyed by it. That's a bit harder to wrap my mind around.

To flip the coin on the other side, we could also argue that if I were shooting bullets over a wide unowned section of land for a time, doesn't mean I get to continue doing that when my neigbors move in and were unawares of the firing range easement/homesteading "right". Question is, for how long do I get to engage in bullet projection before it becomes mine, and when do I lose that right? Shooting less, sporatic fire, stop for a year, start again, write it on a piece of paper and declare it at the registrars office?

[MoonShadow]

So let me get this straight, you're arguing that this noise-polluting, criminal-hiring, extortionist mega-conglomerate can survive for more than a quarter in the free market?

Without government bailouts this corporation won't last more than a month.

Why does that seem so far fetched?  It happens all the time.

Look up a little history of Latin America and see what corporations had going on down there.  They hired hit men to kill union bosses, sub-contracted for torture and kidnap of employees that disagreed with them, and many other such blatantly illegal/immoral activities.

How is the market going to punish them when 99.9995% of the people that comprise the market have no idea this stuff took place because they're scattered all over the world, but these events happened only in a specific area?  I bet YOU don't know the history I'm speaking of.  I bet YOU don't even know what company I'm referring to.  I bet YOU can't even find it on Google without knowing EXACTLY what you're looking for.  I'll give a hint, they're still around and thriving - without a single bailout.

Coca Cola Company, no I didn't look it up.

Dude, that was related to the cultivation of cocaine, which is and was much moreso in the past, a fundamental ingredient in Coke Classic.  

EDIT:  Well, it was and educated guess; but if I got it wrong it's only because of the vast number of choices.  Or perhaps I got it right the first time, so you chose to find another example.  Doesn't matter much, though; none of you guys have bothered to look up where these laws come from.  I didn't make them up.  And they have little to do with statutory laws.

And keep insulting myself or your other opposition, AyeYo, and you will find that your stuck in newbie hell with non-existent post history.  Worse, if I can swing it.

[MoonShadow]

I know what you are trying to say: MysteriousMan is a metaphore for the government!

If you say so. Kind of interesting how he functions within the guidelines of MoonShadow's anti-government laws.

I don't think anyone in this tread even understands those two laws.  What gives you the idea that I'm anti-government?

[NghtRppr]

I know what you are trying to say: MysteriousMan is a metaphore for the government!

If you say so. Kind of interesting how he functions within the guidelines of MoonShadow's anti-government laws.

I don't think anyone in this tread even understands those two laws.  What gives you the idea that I'm anti-government?

Probably because he doesn't understand the difference between governments and states.

[Hawker]

It's not clear to me where the creation of noise represents trespassing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id6glPCLm0E#t=29m15s

If the first 30 seconds are anything to go by, he has no understanding of the law and has never lived in a city.  Noise is regulated like any other form of pollution.  To say that you have "homesteaded the noise" by creating noise pollution is bizarre.  If you want to make noise over a level that people find disturbing in their properties, you need to convince the local community that its in their interests to put up with it.

This thread isn't about how the law currently is.

Well its not how it can ever be either.  Communities will not allow pollution to ruin their properties absent huge amounts of force.

[NghtRppr]

It's not clear to me where the creation of noise represents trespassing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id6glPCLm0E#t=29m15s

If the first 30 seconds are anything to go by, he has no understanding of the law and has never lived in a city.  Noise is regulated like any other form of pollution.  To say that you have "homesteaded the noise" by creating noise pollution is bizarre.  If you want to make noise over a level that people find disturbing in their properties, you need to convince the local community that its in their interests to put up with it.

This thread isn't about how the law currently is.

Well its not how it can ever be either.  Communities will not allow pollution to ruin their properties absent huge amounts of force.

What you've said has nothing to do with that video. You should watch it again.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Well its not how it can ever be either.  Communities will not allow pollution to ruin their properties absent huge amounts of force.

What you've said has nothing to do with that video. You should watch it again.

I don't like videos.  I'd happily read a transcript but listening so someone laboriously building a case from a false premise for an hour is just too much to ask. 

Its worth your watching the first 30 seconds again though to get his concept of "homesteading" the noise.

[NghtRppr]

...snip...
Well its not how it can ever be either.  Communities will not allow pollution to ruin their properties absent huge amounts of force.

What you've said has nothing to do with that video. You should watch it again.

I don't like videos.  I'd happily read a transcript but listening so someone laboriously building a case from a false premise for an hour is just too much to ask. 

Its worth your watching the first 30 seconds again though to get his concept of "homesteading" the noise.

That's all I wanted. That's why I didn't link you to the start of the video. That's how it's relevant to the first post.

[Hawker]

...snip...
Well its not how it can ever be either.  Communities will not allow pollution to ruin their properties absent huge amounts of force.

What you've said has nothing to do with that video. You should watch it again.

I don't like videos.  I'd happily read a transcript but listening so someone laboriously building a case from a false premise for an hour is just too much to ask. 

Its worth your watching the first 30 seconds again though to get his concept of "homesteading" the noise.

That's all I wanted. That's why I didn't link you to the start of the video. That's how it's relevant to the first post.

Ah,  First post is a parable.  I'm too slow for long-winded parables :S

[FirstAscent]

Its worth your watching the first 30 seconds again though to get his concept of "homesteading" the noise.

Homesteading the noise. How funny. Notice how it's all about a race to see who can fuck up everything before someone else does?

Just imagine: "Well, I exploited and destroyed everything before you did, so that means I maintain the rights to do all future exploitation and abuse!"

[NghtRppr]

Its worth your watching the first 30 seconds again though to get his concept of "homesteading" the noise.

Homesteading the noise. How funny. Notice how it's all about a race to see who can fuck up everything before someone else does?

Just imagine: "Well, I exploited and destroyed everything before you did, so that means I maintain the rights to do all future exploitation and abuse!"

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office. If he would have complained immediately and shown the noise to be detrimental, he could have had his quiet. It's not a race towards noise any more than it's a race to quiet.

[FirstAscent]

Its worth your watching the first 30 seconds again though to get his concept of "homesteading" the noise.

Homesteading the noise. How funny. Notice how it's all about a race to see who can fuck up everything before someone else does?

Just imagine: "Well, I exploited and destroyed everything before you did, so that means I maintain the rights to do all future exploitation and abuse!"

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office. If he would have complained immediately and shown the noise to be detrimental, he could have had his quiet. It's not a race towards noise any more than it's a race to quiet.

You do understand what is wrong with your argument, don't you? Again, I'll give you the opportunity to refine it or improve it. But I doubt you'll try, and instead come back with a smug retort about how I have nothing and your argument is perfect. Feel free. You'll only be prolonging your foolish belief in your position.

So, is that your final (and to you, no doubt, decisive) argument?

Want a hint? It has to do with the room that the doctor originally practiced medicine in.

[Hawker]

Its worth your watching the first 30 seconds again though to get his concept of "homesteading" the noise.

Homesteading the noise. How funny. Notice how it's all about a race to see who can fuck up everything before someone else does?

Just imagine: "Well, I exploited and destroyed everything before you did, so that means I maintain the rights to do all future exploitation and abuse!"

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office. If he would have complained immediately and shown the noise to be detrimental, he could have had his quiet. It's not a race towards noise any more than it's a race to quiet.

Um no.  Even if the doctor didn't care about the noise, died of old age and left the house to someone else, the new person would be able to point out that the noise was excessive even after all those years.

[NghtRppr]

Its worth your watching the first 30 seconds again though to get his concept of "homesteading" the noise.

Homesteading the noise. How funny. Notice how it's all about a race to see who can fuck up everything before someone else does?

Just imagine: "Well, I exploited and destroyed everything before you did, so that means I maintain the rights to do all future exploitation and abuse!"

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office. If he would have complained immediately and shown the noise to be detrimental, he could have had his quiet. It's not a race towards noise any more than it's a race to quiet.

You do understand what is wrong with your argument, don't you? Again, I'll give you the opportunity to refine it or improve it. But I doubt you'll try, and instead come back with a smug retort about how I have nothing and your argument is perfect. Feel free. You'll only be prolonging your foolish belief in your position.

So, is that your final (and to you, no doubt, decisive) argument?

Want a hint? It has to do with the room that the doctor originally practiced medicine in.

You're the one acting self-satisfied and smug. Make your point and stop wasting my time.

[FirstAscent]

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office.

He didn't care until he moved his office? Then why did he move his office?

[Hawker]

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office.

He didn't care until he moved his office? Then why did he move his office?

It doesn't matter if he cared about the noise or not.  If its too loud for normal use of his property and the building next door is not zoned for industrial use, he can have it stopped. 

The law exists to provide peaceful resolution to disputes such as this. 

[FirstAscent]

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office.

He didn't care until he moved his office? Then why did he move his office?

It doesn't matter if he cared about the noise or not.  If its too loud for normal use of his property and the building next door is not zoned for industrial use, he can have it stopped.  

The law exists to provide peaceful resolution to disputes such as this.  

Exactly. But their arguments are so bizarre, and it's interesting to draw them into their own logic.

Zoning laws are designed for issues like this: commercial, residential, retail, industrial, etc. However, common sense should prevail as well. Running machine shop type tools in your home can be ok under certain circumstances, such as when it's a hobby and not full time, the tools are in the garage, and the garages are designed such that they don't share a common wall with another resident's living space. If you can run a mill or other such type of machine in your living space without actually bothering your neighbor, then more power to you. This is why we have judges. The fact of the matter is, in that video, both the speaker's viewpoint and Ronald Coase's viewpoint were a bit nutty. But it's par for the course to be exposed to these viewpoints in this forum, where prudent thinking takes a backseat to most everything else.

[MoonShadow]

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office.

He didn't care until he moved his office? Then why did he move his office?

It doesn't matter if he cared about the noise or not.  If its too loud for normal use of his property and the building next door is not zoned for industrial use, he can have it stopped.  

The law exists to provide peaceful resolution to disputes such as this.  

Exactly. But their arguments are so bizarre, and it's interesting to draw them into their own logic.

Zoning laws are designed for issues like this: commercial, residential, retail, industrial, etc. However, common sense should prevail as well. Running machine shop type tools in your home can be ok under certain circumstances, such as when it's a hobby and not full time, the tools are in the garage, and the garages are designed such that they don't share a common wall with another resident's living space. If you can run a mill or other such type of machine in your living space without actually bothering your neighbor, then more power to you. This is why we have judges. The fact of the matter is, in that video, both the speaker's viewpoint and Ronald Coase's viewpoint were a bit nutty. But it's par for the course to be exposed to these viewpoints in this forum, where prudent thinking takes a backseat to most everything else.

Huston Texas has exactly zero zoning laws.

[FirstAscent]

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office.

He didn't care until he moved his office? Then why did he move his office?

It doesn't matter if he cared about the noise or not.  If its too loud for normal use of his property and the building next door is not zoned for industrial use, he can have it stopped.  

The law exists to provide peaceful resolution to disputes such as this.  

Exactly. But their arguments are so bizarre, and it's interesting to draw them into their own logic.

Zoning laws are designed for issues like this: commercial, residential, retail, industrial, etc. However, common sense should prevail as well. Running machine shop type tools in your home can be ok under certain circumstances, such as when it's a hobby and not full time, the tools are in the garage, and the garages are designed such that they don't share a common wall with another resident's living space. If you can run a mill or other such type of machine in your living space without actually bothering your neighbor, then more power to you. This is why we have judges. The fact of the matter is, in that video, both the speaker's viewpoint and Ronald Coase's viewpoint were a bit nutty. But it's par for the course to be exposed to these viewpoints in this forum, where prudent thinking takes a backseat to most everything else.

Huston Texas has exactly zero zoning laws.

Sorry, but it's not like you think. Houston has very strict parking limitations which can relate to vehicle weight and length, as well as strict lot size regulations, and a government which backs up the contracts made in the absence of the zoning laws. It is interesting, but it still results in anomalies, and HOAs are pretty much the rule of thumb - trading one tax for another.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Huston Texas has exactly zero zoning laws.

Really ?

http://www.nonoise.org/lawlib/cities/houston.htm

http://governor.state.tx.us/music/guides/houston_sound_ordinance

What's that then?

[nighteyes]

The first law is ridiculous and the second is actually 2 laws..#1 not to kill over ideas(dont censor), and #2 respect personal private property.

The noise polluter is winning the battle of ideas, thats all. The 'innocent' dudes still have all strategies at their disposal, including violating both of those laws.
If you have a real world example, you can see that the 'losing' side is very weak....and very lazy. Their strategy for winning is absolutely terrible as well....so in a sense its a good thing thats happening to them.

The noise polluter has some serious flaws that can be exploited....now the first thing that anyone credible would say is that I cant tell you what those are. 2 reasons: 1) The high value of stealth, and 2) the principles of the asymmetrics of will....by definition that means all bets are off and logic is not superior...its all shades of grey at that point. You could compare a ninjitsu asymmetrist to an Al-Q asymmetrist...its all spooky whatever happens.

If I were handing out advice to those losers, I would tell them you can only control yourself. Start from there....or watch No country for Old Men and in particular what Woody Harrelson tells "Moss" at the hospital.

[FredericBastiat]

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office. If he would have complained immediately and shown the noise to be detrimental, he could have had his quiet. It's not a race towards noise any more than it's a race to quiet.

The same could be said of a female who was "raped" but didn't complain the first time. By her "silence" or unwillingness to report the abuse, the abuse became, by default, consensual. I don't like that. How long does one wait until it it is considered consensual? Likewise, if she didn't report it the first time, can she be "raped" subsequent times by the same man? Does the lack of a complaint imply consent?

[NghtRppr]

No, it's not. If you want silence, you just have to be there demanding silence. In the scenario, the doctor moved in first and then the guy next door started making noise but the doctor didn't care until he moved his office.

He didn't care until he moved his office? Then why did he move his office?

How am I supposed to know? Am I the doctor? For whatever reason, he wanted his office relocated to where the noise then became a problem.

[cbeast]

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful
to the provider of thy nookie.

&

Thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course
they pray to a different invisible man than you.

George Carlin

[hmongotaku]

It's always a survival of the fittest when it came to civilizations. The strong will prey on the weak. Just ask look what the Mongols did. Just look at the endless treaties early Americans promised to the indians. I like to quote this one person's new dogma that is followed by everybody now.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." -Aleister Crowley

[Hawker]

It's always a survival of the fittest when it came to civilizations. The strong will prey on the weak. Just ask look what the Mongols did. Just look at the endless treaties early Americans promised to the indians. I like to quote this one person's new dogma that is followed by everybody now.

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." -Aleister Crowley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley#Thelema

Are you sure you understand what context he said that and what he meant by it?

[cpunks]

- factory annoys enough people
- people are anarchist and have no respect for law
- people are not living buddhas and have finite patience

- multiple attempts at settling the issue by negotiation fail
- some neigbours move away to undisclosed locations, some of them rather pissed off
- somebody spray-paints "sabotage?" on a nearby wall
- somehow, the factory keeps losing power and water supply, roads keep getting sowed with tire-breaking scrap metal, equipment accumulates damage

- factory continues to annoy enough people
- somebody spray-paints "BtFD" on a nearby wall
- somebody interprets it as "Burn the Factory/Fucker Down" and does so
- zoning laws?

Edit: P.S.

Two alternative laws:

- there are no fixed laws
- perhaps it's worth the effort to behave reasonably? :D

[Hawker]

- factory annoys enough people
- people are anarchist and have no respect for law
- people are not living buddhas and have finite patience

- multiple attempts at settling the issue by negotiation fail
- some neigbours move away to undisclosed locations, some of them rather pissed off
- somebody spray-paints "sabotage?" on a nearby wall
- somehow, the factory keeps losing power and water supply, roads keep getting sowed with tire-breaking scrap metal, equipment accumulates damage

- factory continues to annoy enough people
- somebody spray-paints "BtFD" on a nearby wall
- somebody interprets it as "Burn the Factory/Fucker Down" and does so
- zoning laws?

Edit: P.S.

Two alternative laws:

- there are no fixed laws
- perhaps it's worth the effort to behave reasonably?

What you describe is the reason zoning laws exist.  Its not good that people have to resort to violence in order to protect their homes or their premises.  For both the homeowner and the factory owner, a zoning law that settles the issue before the factory is built is the best option.

[Rassah]

What you describe is the reason zoning laws exist.  Its not good that people have to resort to violence in order to protect their homes or their premises.  For both the homeowner and the factory owner, a zoning law that settles the issue before the factory is built is the best option.

Just as a factory owner is aware of zoning laws, that factory owner will be aware of those risks as well. Then it's just a question of what's cheaper, paying for sound insulation and quieter machines, paying for lots of men with guns to stand around doing nothing, or paying to keep repairing broken equipment and burned stuff.
In either case, that factory owner will likely get severely underpriced by another factory that decides to build in a better "zone" and doesn't have to pay for those extra issues, so, as someone else said, this one likely wouldn't survive long in the market anyway.

[Hawker]

What you describe is the reason zoning laws exist.  Its not good that people have to resort to violence in order to protect their homes or their premises.  For both the homeowner and the factory owner, a zoning law that settles the issue before the factory is built is the best option.

Just as a factory owner is aware of zoning laws, that factory owner will be aware of those risks as well. Then it's just a question of what's cheaper, paying for sound insulation and quieter machines, paying for lots of men with guns to stand around doing nothing, or paying to keep repairing broken equipment and burned stuff.
In either case, that factory owner will likely get severely underpriced by another factory that decides to build in a better "zone" and doesn't have to pay for those extra issues, so, as someone else said, this one likely wouldn't survive long in the market anyway.

So zoning laws save the cost of hiring a militia.  Good point.

[Rassah]

What you describe is the reason zoning laws exist.  Its not good that people have to resort to violence in order to protect their homes or their premises.  For both the homeowner and the factory owner, a zoning law that settles the issue before the factory is built is the best option.

Just as a factory owner is aware of zoning laws, that factory owner will be aware of those risks as well. Then it's just a question of what's cheaper, paying for sound insulation and quieter machines, paying for lots of men with guns to stand around doing nothing, or paying to keep repairing broken equipment and burned stuff.
In either case, that factory owner will likely get severely underpriced by another factory that decides to build in a better "zone" and doesn't have to pay for those extra issues, so, as someone else said, this one likely wouldn't survive long in the market anyway.

So zoning laws save the cost of hiring a militia.  Good point.

But they are still more costly than just building in a better location of your choosing.

[Hawker]

What you describe is the reason zoning laws exist.  Its not good that people have to resort to violence in order to protect their homes or their premises.  For both the homeowner and the factory owner, a zoning law that settles the issue before the factory is built is the best option.

Just as a factory owner is aware of zoning laws, that factory owner will be aware of those risks as well. Then it's just a question of what's cheaper, paying for sound insulation and quieter machines, paying for lots of men with guns to stand around doing nothing, or paying to keep repairing broken equipment and burned stuff.
In either case, that factory owner will likely get severely underpriced by another factory that decides to build in a better "zone" and doesn't have to pay for those extra issues, so, as someone else said, this one likely wouldn't survive long in the market anyway.

So zoning laws save the cost of hiring a militia.  Good point.

But they are still more costly than just building in a better location of your choosing.

No.  If there is a zoning law, the location is fine.  That's how they work.  Saying that people have to move house because they don't want to have to resort to violence is hardly a cheap option even if you think they would be OK with it.

[FirstAscent]

But they are still more costly than just building in a better location of your choosing.

If you ran a business whose job was to etch, treat and anodize aluminum components which are destined to be components of airframes of (mostly) Boeing aircraft, and all your customers are located in the southern Los Angeles area, and shipping the components to be treated requires flatbed trucks, would you locate your business a hundred miles away in the high desert?

[Rassah]

But they are still more costly than just building in a better location of your choosing.

If you ran a business whose job was to etch, treat and anodize aluminum components which are destined to be components of airframes of (mostly) Boeing aircraft, and all your customers are located in the southern Los Angeles area, and shipping the components to be treated requires flatbed trucks, would you locate your business a hundred miles away in the high desert?

First i would question why my customers decided to be in that area. Then I would consider buying the land adjacent to those customers so i can work more closely with them. Then, if that is not an option, I would discuss the costs of shipping with my customers, which I would ask them to pay for, versus the risks of building near them, pissing off people in the surrounding area, and alienating THEIR customers and employees. People who live near those factories often work there. I would totally expect a strike or mass quitting if enough people see their homes ruined.
OR, I would see if it's possible to develop new technology to let them switch to sometjing else, like carbon fiber or plastic. Big reason we don't have awesome electric cars is because gas is so heavily subsidized. Without that, we'd have a lot faster technological progress.

[FirstAscent]

But they are still more costly than just building in a better location of your choosing.

If you ran a business whose job was to etch, treat and anodize aluminum components which are destined to be components of airframes of (mostly) Boeing aircraft, and all your customers are located in the southern Los Angeles area, and shipping the components to be treated requires flatbed trucks, would you locate your business a hundred miles away in the high desert?

First i would question why my customers decided to be in that area. Then I would consider buying the land adjacent to those customers so i can work more closely with them. Then, if that is not an option, I would discuss the costs of shipping with my customers, which I would ask them to pay for, versus the risks of building near them, pissing off people in the surrounding area, and alienating THEIR customers and employees. People who live near those factories often work there. I would totally expect a strike or mass quitting if enough people see their homes ruined.
OR, I would see if it's possible to develop new technology to let them switch to sometjing else, like carbon fiber or plastic. Big reason we don't have awesome electric cars is because gas is so heavily subsidized. Without that, we'd have a lot faster technological progress.

Well, Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas which has plants in the southern Los Angeles area and that is the heart of the defense industry and near two large airports. There is no questioning why they are there. Hundreds of other companies which offer contracting services to the defense industry are in the same area.

Oddly enough, an aluminum etching service is located one hundred miles away in the high desert, virtually in the middle of nowhere. I don't have an answer to why, but I have been to both Boeing and the high desert company on several occasions.

My main point is, there can be many reasons why a company sets up where they do. Minimal regulations related to acidic etching solutions? Maybe the owner owned a large plot of desert land? Who knows?

[Rassah]

But they are still more costly than just building in a better location of your choosing.

If you ran a business whose job was to etch, treat and anodize aluminum components which are destined to be components of airframes of (mostly) Boeing aircraft, and all your customers are located in the southern Los Angeles area, and shipping the components to be treated requires flatbed trucks, would you locate your business a hundred miles away in the high desert?

First i would question why my customers decided to be in that area. Then I would consider buying the land adjacent to those customers so i can work more closely with them. Then, if that is not an option, I would discuss the costs of shipping with my customers, which I would ask them to pay for, versus the risks of building near them, pissing off people in the surrounding area, and alienating THEIR customers and employees. People who live near those factories often work there. I would totally expect a strike or mass quitting if enough people see their homes ruined.
OR, I would see if it's possible to develop new technology to let them switch to sometjing else, like carbon fiber or plastic. Big reason we don't have awesome electric cars is because gas is so heavily subsidized. Without that, we'd have a lot faster technological progress.

Well, Boeing bought McDonnell Douglas which has plants in the southern Los Angeles area and that is the heart of the defense industry and near two large airports. There is no questioning why they are there. Hundreds of other companies which offer contracting services to the defense industry are in the same area.

Oddly enough, an aluminum etching service is located one hundred miles away in the high desert, virtually in the middle of nowhere. I don't have an answer to why, but I have been to both Boeing and the high desert company on several occasions.

My main point is, there can be many reasons why a company sets up where they do. Minimal regulations related to acidic etching solutions? Maybe the owner owned a large plot of desert land? Who knows?

Could also be that desert land and transportation are both dirt cheap.

[FirstAscent]

Could also be that desert land and transportation are both dirt cheap.

Desert land is cheaper. In my initial scenario in the first post, envision MoonShadow's home to be on a desert plot. As for transportation, is $800 cheap to transport a sixteen foot skin that is part of an aileron, so that it can be treated with a coating?

[Rassah]

Could also be that desert land and transportation are both dirt cheap.

Desert land is cheaper. In my initial scenario in the first post, envision MoonShadow's home to be on a desert plot. As for transportation, is $800 cheap to transport a sixteen foot skin that is part of an aileron, so that it can be treated with a coating?

I paid $450 to transport my six foot tal Sonic Championship arcade cabinet, and that was on a truck with other shipments, too, so that sounds cheap, yeah.
It's also likely cheaper than the costs the company would've had to deal with if it built near other people if zoning laws didn't exist.

[FirstAscent]

Could also be that desert land and transportation are both dirt cheap.

Desert land is cheaper. In my initial scenario in the first post, envision MoonShadow's home to be on a desert plot. As for transportation, is $800 cheap to transport a sixteen foot skin that is part of an aileron, so that it can be treated with a coating?

I paid $450 to transport my six foot tal Sonic Championship arcade cabinet, and that was on a truck with other shipments, too, so that sounds cheap, yeah.
It's also likely cheaper than the costs the company would've had to deal with if it built near other people if zoning laws didn't exist.

You're only guessing. The bottom line is, you don't know the reason they're out there in the desert. The real point here is that you can't really predict where a company may choose to locate, and in the absence of regulations, you can't really assume that a company will choose to do one thing or another.

Regarding the $800 shipping costs, consider that the aileron skin is probably about 32 square feet. An airliner's wing, including top and bottom. will likely have 2,000 square feet. There are two wings. That's 4,000 square feet. Of course, for all I know, some components may be batch shipped, others not shipped at all - I won't claim to know, but what I've observed.

Of course, you pay for this when you fly. The real cost is fuel. A 747's tanks hold 57,000 gallons, and that will take you across the Pacific. A bit off topic, I realize, but interesting anyway.

[Rassah]

The real point here is that you can't really predict where a company may choose to locate, and in the absence of regulations, you can't really assume that a company will choose to do one thing or another.

You also can't really predict if the government will decide a new aluminum factory is good for the economy and jobs, use their eminent domain power to pay "fair market" values to home owners, and kick them out whether they want to or not. So sucks both ways.

[MoonShadow]

Isn't this thread about the two laws in my signature?  Do you guys think it has anything to do with zoning?

[Anonymous]

Isn't this thread about the two laws in my signature?  Do you guys think it has anything to do with zoning?

After the second page, things tend to drift. It really can't be helped in a board of this nature.

[MoonShadow]

Isn't this thread about the two laws in my signature?  Do you guys think it has anything to do with zoning?

After the second page, things tend to drift. It really can't be helped in a board of this nature.

In the case of this thread, the topic drifted away after the first post, and the first post wasn't terriblely on topic either.

[Rassah]

Isn't this thread about the two laws in my signature?  Do you guys think it has anything to do with zoning?

Looked like the topic was on question of how the two laws could be upheld if there are no zoning laws. Maybe a question on how someone could be forced to follow those two laws without government enforcement.

[MoonShadow]

Isn't this thread about the two laws in my signature?  Do you guys think it has anything to do with zoning?

Looked like the topic was on question of how the two laws could be upheld if there are no zoning laws. Maybe a question on how someone could be forced to follow those two laws without government enforcement.

Zoning laws are government statutes, not real laws.

The two laws of civilizations are closer to an enumeration of 'natural laws' of social science.  Like a base moral code that all societies must, in general, honor in some fashion or another in order to prosper.  They were coined by Richard Mayberry, author of a series of children's books that taught an introduction to Praxeology called The Uncle Eric Series under titles such as Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?  Whatever Happened to Justice? and The Clipper Ship Stragedy.  You can boil down the moral codes of every religion on Earth to these who common concepts, even though every religious moral code has numerous exceptions and much greater details.  Any society whose population generally obeys these two laws, local social particulars aside, and imposes a fair and evenly applied consequence against those who do not obey these two laws, will prosper.  Every society whose population generally does not obey these two laws, or fails to evenly apply consequences to those who violate them, will decline.

[Hawker]

Isn't this thread about the two laws in my signature?  Do you guys think it has anything to do with zoning?

Looked like the topic was on question of how the two laws could be upheld if there are no zoning laws. Maybe a question on how someone could be forced to follow those two laws without government enforcement.

Zoning laws are government statutes, not real laws.

The two laws of civilizations are closer to an enumeration of 'natural laws' of social science.  Like a base moral code that all societies must, in general, honor in some fashion or another in order to prosper.  They were coined by Richard Mayberry, author of a series of children's books that taught an introduction to Praxeology called The Uncle Eric Series under titles such as Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?  Whatever Happened to Justice? and The Clipper Ship Stragedy.  You can boil down the moral codes of every religion on Earth to these who common concepts, even though every religious moral code has numerous exceptions and much greater details.  Any society whose population generally obeys these two laws, local social particulars aside, and imposes a fair and evenly applied consequence against those who do not obey these two laws, will prosper.  Every society whose population generally does not obey these two laws, or fails to evenly apply consequences to those who violate them, will decline.

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

[MoonShadow]

Isn't this thread about the two laws in my signature?  Do you guys think it has anything to do with zoning?

Looked like the topic was on question of how the two laws could be upheld if there are no zoning laws. Maybe a question on how someone could be forced to follow those two laws without government enforcement.

Zoning laws are government statutes, not real laws.

The two laws of civilizations are closer to an enumeration of 'natural laws' of social science.  Like a base moral code that all societies must, in general, honor in some fashion or another in order to prosper.  They were coined by Richard Mayberry, author of a series of children's books that taught an introduction to Praxeology called The Uncle Eric Series under titles such as Whatever Happened to Penny Candy?  Whatever Happened to Justice? and The Clipper Ship Stragedy.  You can boil down the moral codes of every religion on Earth to these who common concepts, even though every religious moral code has numerous exceptions and much greater details.  Any society whose population generally obeys these two laws, local social particulars aside, and imposes a fair and evenly applied consequence against those who do not obey these two laws, will prosper.  Every society whose population generally does not obey these two laws, or fails to evenly apply consequences to those who violate them, will decline.

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

[Hawker]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

[Anonymous]

Assuming there are no other coercive factors and that the worker's labor is scarce enough, the employers will likely give into their requests.

If the employer fires them all, it usually means that there is enough content labor to replace them. I see nothing wrong with this.

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough. 

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough. 

Unless your employment contract is of a defined term, then it's ongoing and can be voided by either party at will.  This is why you can quit McDonalds without being sued and they can fire you so long as they still pay you for the time that you were there.  No matter how you try to spin it, yes it is fair enough in the standard conditions that I have presented.  However, if you signed a term contract, you can't change the terms of the employment until the term of the contract is complete.  So unions have no vector for organizing the US military, as an example.

[Hawker]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large. 

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough. 

Unless your employment contract is of a defined term, then it's ongoing and can be voided by either party at will.  This is why you can quit McDonalds without being sued and they can fire you so long as they still pay you for the time that you were there.  No matter how you try to spin it, yes it is fair enough in the standard conditions that I have presented.  However, if you signed a term contract, you can't change the terms of the employment until the term of the contract is complete.  So unions have no vector for organizing the US military, as an example.

You really really hate when someone agrees with you.  Why is that?

[MoonShadow]

...snip...

Out of curiosity, are workers who go on strike breaking your 'natural law?'

Not necessarily.  It depends upon the details.  Furthermore, it's very easy to end up violating one law while honoring the other.  One such example is the job of the tax collector in the New Testament, or the IRS agent today.  One one hand, acceptance of the position is an implicit agreement to obey the written edicts of government; while on the other one is literally taking the fruits of labors from citizens of that government, many of whom have never done you any personal harm, nor likely even the government or society at large.  

So how do people who organise a union in spite of the bosses objections rate if they go on strike?

Not enough details for the straw to burn.

Let's assume that the organing group honestly represents a majority of employees, and that they work in a normal factory on a production line.  Then whatever agreement that they had before can be boiled down to so much pay for being present and following directions for an hour at a time.  Your basic hourly wage earner.  Does that mean that said non-union employee has implicitly agreed to sell said employer his time indefinately?  Or is it an ongoing agreement that continues so long as both parties continue to agree?  I'd say the latter.  In such a case, the employee is not bound to not strike unless he has otherwise already agreed to such terms.  If he chooses to honor his agreement with the union brotherhood, and walk out at a particular time, the terms just changed.  So far, that particular union member has not violated the two laws as far as I can see.  If he is obligated to continue to work against his will, in the absence of his free and willful agreement to do so, it's slavery; which would put the employer in violation of the two laws.

So if you are a member of a union on a non-union site, you have potentially entered an agreement that clashes with your employment contract.  And then you are free to choose which of the 2 agreements you honour.

OK - seems fair enough.  

Unless your employment contract is of a defined term, then it's ongoing and can be voided by either party at will.  This is why you can quit McDonalds without being sued and they can fire you so long as they still pay you for the time that you were there.  No matter how you try to spin it, yes it is fair enough in the standard conditions that I have presented.  However, if you signed a term contract, you can't change the terms of the employment until the term of the contract is complete.  So unions have no vector for organizing the US military, as an example.

You implied that the two contracts clashed, when they did not.  The union member in the original strawman above did not have to violate one agreement to honor the other, he simply had to end the ongoing agreement.

You really really hate when someone agrees with you.  Why is that?