6 ms·

>What I think most of us really want is to be able to do whatever we want, while also being able to tell others what to do. I think some people really do want

by jchw 5y ago

>What I think most of us really want is to be able to do whatever we want, while also being able to tell others what to do. I think some people really do want this. But I don't. I really just want to be able to do whatever I want, and then want other people to do whatever they want, as long as it isn't doing material harm to someone. The problem can come down to defining 'harm' since some people try to define it in their own image of what they wish wasn't allowed, but I hope there are still people out there who espouse these values, because it's the world I would prefer to live in :\ The problem is that people think like this everywhere, because it's exceptionally easy to just lie to yourself and convince yourself that in your case, it's justified to tell others what to do. And you get a lot of mental gymnastics out of that. I do understand that sometimes it might not be out of a strict desire to prevent people from doing stuff that they do not personally agree with. For example, maybe someone's primary concern is property value, or hell, just having a nice looking neighborhood. But honestly, if I see a neighborhood with a very tasteless looking front yard with shit scattered about, then at least that's a sign that the neighborhood is chill. edit: And it shall be noted I am trying to make a case against HOAs. I think my note about “harm” was a bit ambiguous. In general I want the legal system to define what is harmful enough to be actionable. Imperfect? Yes. A sort of “nobody’s favorite, but everybody’s favorite” -type situation, in my view.

lisper 5y ago
> The problem can come down to defining 'harm' Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to make the neighborhood as a whole less desirable to live in and hence reduce property values. The net effect of that is the same as literally taking money from you. Is that harm? Because it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters. Aside: I lived in HOA neighborhoods and non-HOA neighborhoods. On the whole I prefer the later, but I have horror stories from both.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  This is the sand heap fallacy. Even if you can't tell where the line is, it's obvious that turning your front yard into a mini-San Francisco is on one side of it, and that painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it. We shouldn't have to pick the wrong answer for one of these bright-line cases just because there's some gray cases.
  - lisper 5y ago
    > it's obvious that ... painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it It might be obvious to you (it's obvious to me too), but it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy, nor to the people who voted for them.
    - MereInterest 5y ago
      > it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy I'm not even sure that's the case. I can conceive of a board that previously had a house like this[0] (first result of google image search for "garish house colors"), had a big back and forth on what to do about it, and wants to avoid getting into the same fight again. The resolution from last time was to establish some boundary and to enforce it rigorously, even if that excludes some colors that are acceptable. The current board knows that the shutter-color enforcement is ridiculous, but can't make an exception for the general house colors without giving ammunition to the person who painted their house neon green with pink polka dots. Not saying that that is the reasoning of any one particular board, but rather saying that I can conceive of cases where a person or group takes actions they know to be unreasonable in themselves, but may be reasonable in a wider context. [0] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7600b78f625a1.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7...
      - lisper 5y ago
        But that's just making the observation that things that may seem obvious at first glance may not be obvious once you think more deeply about them. It doesn't really matter why they are not obvious. What matters is that they are not obvious.
        MereInterest 5y ago
        Good point, and thank you for the clarification. I had been interpreting "manifestly not obvious" as a rhetorical device to state that the board were clearly decided and set that shutter-colors were within the scope of what an HOA board might reasonably decide, and therefore it is "manifestly not obvious" that it is outside the scope. (Sort of how somebody saying the words "There are some here who may disagree with you." is implicitly stating that they disagree and is inviting others to join in disagreement.) I agree that it is not obvious where the line is, and was attempting to a hypothetical where even a single person might be unsure.
- jchw 5y ago
  Well, this example is a bit extreme. There’s some nuisance behavior that is made illicit on the basis that it is harm to the public as a whole. Having people defecate on your front lawn in view of everyone probably runs afoul of something in most jurisdictions. What happens behind closed doors is mostly still fine, though, even though it can lower property value. A lot of things can lower property value that aren’t fair to you, and the mere fact that they happen doesn’t mean you personally were wronged nor does it mean anything illicit has happened. Could be a nearby factory shuttering causing the local economy to struggle, or something.
  - midasuni 5y ago
    A lot of things can raise the property value too. New metro station opens, pushing your value up 300k? Do people say “hey that’s not right, here you take the money mr metro man”?
- lelanthran 5y ago
  > Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to make the neighborhood as a whole less desirable to live in and hence reduce property values. The net effect of that is the same as literally taking money from you. Is that harm? Because it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters. It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you if someone complains. No HOA needed.
  - lisper 5y ago
    That's begging the question [1]. An HOA is just another form of government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
    - lelanthran 5y ago
      Yes, but if you don't have it the other forms of government handle the former example in the post I replied to. I fail to see how this is circular reasoning. Can you explain?
      - lisper 5y ago
        The point is that these decisions -- whether it is acceptable to allow drug addicts to sleep on the lawn or to pain the shutters pink -- have to be made by someone. Either those decisions get made by the owner of the property, or they get made by someone else. It doesn't matter whether that "someone else" is "the government" or "the HOA board", and it doesn't matter whether infringing on the decision made by someone else is "illegal" or merely "against HOA policy". These are just labels. What matters is that the decisions about what you can and can't do with your house (and, for that matter, in every aspect of your life) are either yours to make, or they are someone else's, and it is not a slam-dunk which one leads to better outcomes.
        lelanthran 5y ago
darkerside 5y ago
And what happens when you disagree?
- jchw 5y ago
  With what? I am painting a viewpoint against HOAs. edit: I think I understand why people are reading it this way, so I added a bit onto my original post.
beambot 5y ago
Where do you (personally) draw the line at material harm...? We already have a system (the courts) for redressing material harms. Many HOA bylaws (house color, RV parking, minimal landscaping requirements, etc etc etc) aren't material harms. They are "harms by association" -- e.g. my house value goes down because you have bad taste in paint colors. Hence "Home Owner Associations".
- jchw 5y ago
  I think some are misinterpreting my post as being in favor of HOAs, but actually I am saying that if someone is not doing something outright illegal I’m generally in favor of them being able to do it.
- shados 5y ago
  > We already have a system (the courts) for redressing material harms. Laws are a baseline. People can build on top of that. Just like there are laws that define what should happen when a couple divorce, many people will sign a prenup to add extra rules they mutually agree to that not EVERYONE would agree to, for each other's benefits. You or I certainly don't get to decide what's reasonable or what's silly in someone else's prenup. HOA bylaws are just a bigger version of that.
rubicon33 5y ago
Yea, it really all comes down to what you define "harm" as. If I haven't updated my house in 60 years, paint falling off, lawn completely dead, park my rusted out 1983 honda civic with flat tires on my front lawn, and have a pile of garbage 10 feet high in the driveway... Does that cause harm to you, or do you just define that as "chill"? It's going to entirely depend on who you're asking, at what stage of life they are in, etc. I'm glad HOA neighborhoods exist for people who are at a position in their life (generally financially well off) to enjoy one. On the other hand, I'm glad not all neighborhoods are that way and you can find some where being a bit behind on maintenance isn't a crime.
- blowski 5y ago
  Exactly. If your pile of tires starts lowering my property’s value, are you doing me harm?
  - jchw 5y ago
    In my opinion the answer to that question is actually clear: No. Simply because an investment or asset of yours loses value for reasons outside of your control is not reason to then decide that you’ve been harmed, more than if actions or conditions entirely outside of your control lifts the value of your investments or assets. IMO, a reasonable viewpoint is that an HOA is a communal way to fix the “out of your control” part at the cost of some personal freedoms. But some people err on the side of the personal freedoms. I know it’s easy to say on an online forum and bad experiences can change one’s mind, but I am comfortable in saying that I would most likely keep this viewpoint in the face of challenges, and instead prefer to push for the law to be amended if it is necessary... So yes, I think the answer here is no even regardless of whether you would prefer an HOA, but I still upvoted your comment though as I think it raises the important question.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Is it a violation of the non aggression principle to not wear a mask? Or to force someone to wear a mask? As an analogous example. The connection to property values is a bit ethereal IMO.
- 5y ago

by jchw 5y ago

lisper 5y ago

> The problem can come down to defining 'harm' Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to make the neighborhood as a whole less desirable to live in and hence reduce property values. The net effect of that is the same as literally taking money from you. Is that harm? Because it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters. Aside: I lived in HOA neighborhoods and non-HOA neighborhoods. On the whole I prefer the later, but I have horror stories from both.

josephcsible 5y ago
This is the sand heap fallacy. Even if you can't tell where the line is, it's obvious that turning your front yard into a mini-San Francisco is on one side of it, and that painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it. We shouldn't have to pick the wrong answer for one of these bright-line cases just because there's some gray cases.
- lisper 5y ago
  > it's obvious that ... painting your shutters the wrong color is on the other side of it It might be obvious to you (it's obvious to me too), but it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy, nor to the people who voted for them.
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    > it was manifestly not obvious to the board members who voted to enforce the shutter-color policy I'm not even sure that's the case. I can conceive of a board that previously had a house like this[0] (first result of google image search for "garish house colors"), had a big back and forth on what to do about it, and wants to avoid getting into the same fight again. The resolution from last time was to establish some boundary and to enforce it rigorously, even if that excludes some colors that are acceptable. The current board knows that the shutter-color enforcement is ridiculous, but can't make an exception for the general house colors without giving ammunition to the person who painted their house neon green with pink polka dots. Not saying that that is the reasoning of any one particular board, but rather saying that I can conceive of cases where a person or group takes actions they know to be unreasonable in themselves, but may be reasonable in a wider context. [0] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7600b78f625a1.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/originals/a3/9b/35/a39b35132a3c1cc219a7...
    - lisper 5y ago
      But that's just making the observation that things that may seem obvious at first glance may not be obvious once you think more deeply about them. It doesn't really matter why they are not obvious. What matters is that they are not obvious.
      - MereInterest 5y ago
        Good point, and thank you for the clarification. I had been interpreting "manifestly not obvious" as a rhetorical device to state that the board were clearly decided and set that shutter-colors were within the scope of what an HOA board might reasonably decide, and therefore it is "manifestly not obvious" that it is outside the scope. (Sort of how somebody saying the words "There are some here who may disagree with you." is implicitly stating that they disagree and is inviting others to join in disagreement.) I agree that it is not obvious where the line is, and was attempting to a hypothetical where even a single person might be unsure.
jchw 5y ago
Well, this example is a bit extreme. There’s some nuisance behavior that is made illicit on the basis that it is harm to the public as a whole. Having people defecate on your front lawn in view of everyone probably runs afoul of something in most jurisdictions. What happens behind closed doors is mostly still fine, though, even though it can lower property value. A lot of things can lower property value that aren’t fair to you, and the mere fact that they happen doesn’t mean you personally were wronged nor does it mean anything illicit has happened. Could be a nearby factory shuttering causing the local economy to struggle, or something.
- midasuni 5y ago
  A lot of things can raise the property value too. New metro station opens, pushing your value up 300k? Do people say “hey that’s not right, here you take the money mr metro man”?
lelanthran 5y ago
> Indeed. If I, say, allow drug addicts to camp out on my front lawn and defecate on it, I'm probably going to make the neighborhood as a whole less desirable to live in and hence reduce property values. The net effect of that is the same as literally taking money from you. Is that harm? Because it's really hard to draw a sharp line between that and the wrong color of shutters. It's really easy - the former example is actually illegal in most places and the local LE will deal with you if someone complains. No HOA needed.
- lisper 5y ago
  That's begging the question [1]. An HOA is just another form of government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
  - lelanthran 5y ago
    Yes, but if you don't have it the other forms of government handle the former example in the post I replied to. I fail to see how this is circular reasoning. Can you explain?
    - lisper 5y ago
      The point is that these decisions -- whether it is acceptable to allow drug addicts to sleep on the lawn or to pain the shutters pink -- have to be made by someone. Either those decisions get made by the owner of the property, or they get made by someone else. It doesn't matter whether that "someone else" is "the government" or "the HOA board", and it doesn't matter whether infringing on the decision made by someone else is "illegal" or merely "against HOA policy". These are just labels. What matters is that the decisions about what you can and can't do with your house (and, for that matter, in every aspect of your life) are either yours to make, or they are someone else's, and it is not a slam-dunk which one leads to better outcomes.
      - lelanthran 5y ago

darkerside 5y ago

And what happens when you disagree?

jchw 5y ago
With what? I am painting a viewpoint against HOAs. edit: I think I understand why people are reading it this way, so I added a bit onto my original post.

beambot 5y ago

Where do you (personally) draw the line at material harm...? We already have a system (the courts) for redressing material harms. Many HOA bylaws (house color, RV parking, minimal landscaping requirements, etc etc etc) aren't material harms. They are "harms by association" -- e.g. my house value goes down because you have bad taste in paint colors. Hence "Home Owner Associations".

jchw 5y ago
I think some are misinterpreting my post as being in favor of HOAs, but actually I am saying that if someone is not doing something outright illegal I’m generally in favor of them being able to do it.
shados 5y ago
> We already have a system (the courts) for redressing material harms. Laws are a baseline. People can build on top of that. Just like there are laws that define what should happen when a couple divorce, many people will sign a prenup to add extra rules they mutually agree to that not EVERYONE would agree to, for each other's benefits. You or I certainly don't get to decide what's reasonable or what's silly in someone else's prenup. HOA bylaws are just a bigger version of that.

rubicon33 5y ago

Yea, it really all comes down to what you define "harm" as. If I haven't updated my house in 60 years, paint falling off, lawn completely dead, park my rusted out 1983 honda civic with flat tires on my front lawn, and have a pile of garbage 10 feet high in the driveway... Does that cause harm to you, or do you just define that as "chill"? It's going to entirely depend on who you're asking, at what stage of life they are in, etc. I'm glad HOA neighborhoods exist for people who are at a position in their life (generally financially well off) to enjoy one. On the other hand, I'm glad not all neighborhoods are that way and you can find some where being a bit behind on maintenance isn't a crime.

blowski 5y ago
Exactly. If your pile of tires starts lowering my property’s value, are you doing me harm?
- jchw 5y ago
  In my opinion the answer to that question is actually clear: No. Simply because an investment or asset of yours loses value for reasons outside of your control is not reason to then decide that you’ve been harmed, more than if actions or conditions entirely outside of your control lifts the value of your investments or assets. IMO, a reasonable viewpoint is that an HOA is a communal way to fix the “out of your control” part at the cost of some personal freedoms. But some people err on the side of the personal freedoms. I know it’s easy to say on an online forum and bad experiences can change one’s mind, but I am comfortable in saying that I would most likely keep this viewpoint in the face of challenges, and instead prefer to push for the law to be amended if it is necessary... So yes, I think the answer here is no even regardless of whether you would prefer an HOA, but I still upvoted your comment though as I think it raises the important question.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Is it a violation of the non aggression principle to not wear a mask? Or to force someone to wear a mask? As an analogous example. The connection to property values is a bit ethereal IMO.
5y ago