7 ms·

>I mean, if it's such a good idea, surely you could get some people to try it, and then they'd see what a lovely new feeling of freedom they enjoyed, and the id

by ancap 10y ago

>I mean, if it's such a good idea, surely you could get some people to try it, and then they'd see what a lovely new feeling of freedom they enjoyed, and the idea would spread from there? No need. There's already communities where the roads and sidewalks are all owned through an HOA. There are communities with private roads yet no HOA. Are you suggesting those who live in these neighborhoods have some extraneous burden over them as they go for a stroll through their neighborhood? You say fringe, but they already exist in reality.

Frondo 10y ago
If HOAs are your idea of expansive new freedom, I think you can probably do better than that. HOAs get a really bad rep for absolutely limiting the freedoms of the people who live there--from things like restrictions on what colors they can paint their houses to restrictions on what kind of political signage they can put up. HOAs are so completely recognized as little hotbeds of conformity (and abuse of authority, like all these stories about when HOA boards get it in for one of their residents, and end up booting that person out of their home!), it's actually surprising that you're positing them as sources of more freedom for the inhabitants. And, also, I don't know how many people in these HOAs you're talking about chose them for their freedom-maximizing non-government-maintained sidewalks (which, to them, are of course de-facto commons anyway!). I imagine if you asked any of them, they wouldn't even think about it, just that they'd pay a sidewalk tax one way or another. I dunno, the whole thing keeps sounding stupid. Not that I lack imagination, but that you've gotten ahold of some dumb ideas and aren't letting go.
st3v3r 10y ago
HOAs are routinely held up as the exact opposite of freedom.
- ancap 10y ago
  Only by the ignorant who couldn't define freedom to begin with. If you have freedom than you also have the right to limit your freedom by engaging in contracts with others. HOAs are nothing more than this, and everyone who lives in an HOA chose to be subject to the terms of the contract. To claim you have less freedom under an HOA (something you voluntarily choose) than you would under a local government (something forced upon you) is ridiculous.
  - Frondo 10y ago
    Well of course you can have less freedom under something you choose than under something imposed upon you. I can sit around all day, doing nothing, and the government is doing nothing to restrict my freedom. They're not telling me to go anywhere or do anything. They're not restricting my freedom at all! If I choose to go get a job, though, now I gotta show up somewhere, do what someone tells me, etc. That's something I chose voluntarily, but gives me much less freedom than the alternative. But I'm beginning to get where this would all go--you're going to play word games and redefine "freedom" until the answer is "everything is owned by someone" (or, I'd venture to guess, "freedom means whatever ancap says") is somehow maximally free. Well, of course, ownership itself is a severe curtailment of freedom. I can't just exist in my body anywhere I want, because some places are "owned" by someone and that person could eject my body from "their" space. The very idea of a private space is such an assault on my freedom to walk and exist where I want, I don't see how there could be less freedom in the world, once everything is owned. This whole "no commons" thing seems about as un-free as it's possible to imagine. Unless, of course, we all negotiate to give everyone access to a number of well-demarcated spaces and resources. We could call them "common" places or "the commons"! Ha! But like I said, I think this little chat is about to turn into dumb word games, so I'll step away here.
    - ancap 10y ago
      >so I'll step away here That's the first intelligent thing you've said.
      - Frondo 10y ago
        Ha! Ancap, you're the greatest!
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    "Only by the ignorant who couldn't define freedom to begin with." Yeah, no. Having an unelected, compulsory board governing the area is not freedom. "HOAs are nothing more than this, and everyone who lives in an HOA chose to be subject to the terms of the contract." Often times not, as one cannot buy houses in an area without being a member of the HOA. Further, there's the whole "no voting on people running the HOA" thing. "To claim you have less freedom under an HOA (something you voluntarily choose) than you would under a local government (something forced upon you) is ridiculous." I get to vote on members of my local government. I don't get to vote on members of the HOA.

by ancap 10y ago

Frondo 10y ago

If HOAs are your idea of expansive new freedom, I think you can probably do better than that. HOAs get a really bad rep for absolutely limiting the freedoms of the people who live there--from things like restrictions on what colors they can paint their houses to restrictions on what kind of political signage they can put up. HOAs are so completely recognized as little hotbeds of conformity (and abuse of authority, like all these stories about when HOA boards get it in for one of their residents, and end up booting that person out of their home!), it's actually surprising that you're positing them as sources of more freedom for the inhabitants. And, also, I don't know how many people in these HOAs you're talking about chose them for their freedom-maximizing non-government-maintained sidewalks (which, to them, are of course de-facto commons anyway!). I imagine if you asked any of them, they wouldn't even think about it, just that they'd pay a sidewalk tax one way or another. I dunno, the whole thing keeps sounding stupid. Not that I lack imagination, but that you've gotten ahold of some dumb ideas and aren't letting go.

st3v3r 10y ago

HOAs are routinely held up as the exact opposite of freedom.

ancap 10y ago
Only by the ignorant who couldn't define freedom to begin with. If you have freedom than you also have the right to limit your freedom by engaging in contracts with others. HOAs are nothing more than this, and everyone who lives in an HOA chose to be subject to the terms of the contract. To claim you have less freedom under an HOA (something you voluntarily choose) than you would under a local government (something forced upon you) is ridiculous.
- Frondo 10y ago
  Well of course you can have less freedom under something you choose than under something imposed upon you. I can sit around all day, doing nothing, and the government is doing nothing to restrict my freedom. They're not telling me to go anywhere or do anything. They're not restricting my freedom at all! If I choose to go get a job, though, now I gotta show up somewhere, do what someone tells me, etc. That's something I chose voluntarily, but gives me much less freedom than the alternative. But I'm beginning to get where this would all go--you're going to play word games and redefine "freedom" until the answer is "everything is owned by someone" (or, I'd venture to guess, "freedom means whatever ancap says") is somehow maximally free. Well, of course, ownership itself is a severe curtailment of freedom. I can't just exist in my body anywhere I want, because some places are "owned" by someone and that person could eject my body from "their" space. The very idea of a private space is such an assault on my freedom to walk and exist where I want, I don't see how there could be less freedom in the world, once everything is owned. This whole "no commons" thing seems about as un-free as it's possible to imagine. Unless, of course, we all negotiate to give everyone access to a number of well-demarcated spaces and resources. We could call them "common" places or "the commons"! Ha! But like I said, I think this little chat is about to turn into dumb word games, so I'll step away here.
  - ancap 10y ago
    >so I'll step away here That's the first intelligent thing you've said.
    - Frondo 10y ago
      Ha! Ancap, you're the greatest!
- st3v3r 10y ago
  "Only by the ignorant who couldn't define freedom to begin with." Yeah, no. Having an unelected, compulsory board governing the area is not freedom. "HOAs are nothing more than this, and everyone who lives in an HOA chose to be subject to the terms of the contract." Often times not, as one cannot buy houses in an area without being a member of the HOA. Further, there's the whole "no voting on people running the HOA" thing. "To claim you have less freedom under an HOA (something you voluntarily choose) than you would under a local government (something forced upon you) is ridiculous." I get to vote on members of my local government. I don't get to vote on members of the HOA.