3 ms·

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

by 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.
- ancap 10y ago
  >Yeah, no. Having an unelected, compulsory board governing the area is not freedom. Whether the officers are elected or not (or whether there are officers at all) would be determined by the founding documents of the HOA. But it is definitely not compulsory. >Often times not, as one cannot buy houses in an area without being a member of the HOA. That doesn't make it compulsory. If you buy a house in an established HOA you chose to be subject to it. If you don't want to be subject to it, you don't buy the house. Saying you should have the right to buy a house in an HOA area and not be subject to it is saying you believe contracts should be non-binding, that is, worthless. >I get to vote on members of my local government. I don't get to vote on members of the HOA. As pointed out above, an HOA can have whatever structure the founders want it to have, or whatever the current decision makers amend it to be. As a tangent note, democracy does not define freedom.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    That's disingenuous to pretend its not compulsory, just don't buy the house! We all understand it to mean, to live in a certain area its compulsory to belong to the HOA. Living in an area can be important for lots of reasons. Buying a house is a contract between the seller and the buyer regarding personal property. To be required to include a third party (the HOA) is strange. You don't have to belong to the NSX fan club to own an NSX. The whole point of HOAs is to enforce somebody's personal preferences on their neighbors. Its annoying, infringes on my personal space, and promotes a weird philosophy of groupthink in what I consider an un-American way.

by ancap 10y ago

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.

ancap 10y ago
>Yeah, no. Having an unelected, compulsory board governing the area is not freedom. Whether the officers are elected or not (or whether there are officers at all) would be determined by the founding documents of the HOA. But it is definitely not compulsory. >Often times not, as one cannot buy houses in an area without being a member of the HOA. That doesn't make it compulsory. If you buy a house in an established HOA you chose to be subject to it. If you don't want to be subject to it, you don't buy the house. Saying you should have the right to buy a house in an HOA area and not be subject to it is saying you believe contracts should be non-binding, that is, worthless. >I get to vote on members of my local government. I don't get to vote on members of the HOA. As pointed out above, an HOA can have whatever structure the founders want it to have, or whatever the current decision makers amend it to be. As a tangent note, democracy does not define freedom.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  That's disingenuous to pretend its not compulsory, just don't buy the house! We all understand it to mean, to live in a certain area its compulsory to belong to the HOA. Living in an area can be important for lots of reasons. Buying a house is a contract between the seller and the buyer regarding personal property. To be required to include a third party (the HOA) is strange. You don't have to belong to the NSX fan club to own an NSX. The whole point of HOAs is to enforce somebody's personal preferences on their neighbors. Its annoying, infringes on my personal space, and promotes a weird philosophy of groupthink in what I consider an un-American way.