The Two Laws of All Civilization?

[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.

[1714139089]

1714139089

[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?