3 ms·

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/wi

by 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
    I still don't see how that is circular reasoning. Where do you find a conclusion that is supported by itself? > It doesn't matter whether that "someone else" is "the government" or "the HOA board" It's not an "or", it's an "and" and that makes all the difference. The reality is that in all cases, having both a Party A AND a Party B make your decisions for you is objectively worse than simply having Party A or Party B make the decision. Having an HOA make you decisions for you doesn't make the state's decisions go away. Doing away with the HOA only leaves a single irritation. > 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, There is a large distinction of "having many different parties with authority over you" and "having one party with authority over you". The HOA isn't a single party that has authority over you, it is composed of multiple people who make take turns invoking the HOA rules against you. The state is a different matter - there are repercussions to individuals and appeals to an impartial third-party when the state invokes a rule against you. You simply cannot equivocate an HOA with the state. People have recourse against the state.
    - lisper 5y ago
      > I still don't see how that is circular reasoning. Where do you find a conclusion that is supported by itself? Here: > > 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 How do you think HOAs enforce their restrictions? When push comes to shove, disputes with HOAs get settled in courts, which are an arm of the state. > You simply cannot equivocate an HOA with the state. People have recourse against the state. People have the exact same recourse against HOAs as they have against the state because the HOA's authority derives entirely from the state. HOAs do not have their own enforcement mechanisms. And HOA boards are elected just like the people who run the state(s) in the USA. It really is just another level of government.
      - lelanthran 5y ago
        >> I still don't see how that is circular reasoning. Where do you find a conclusion that is supported by itself? > >Here: > >> 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 > > How do you think HOAs enforce their restrictions? When push > comes to shove, disputes with HOAs get settled in courts, > which are an arm of the state. So? That doesn't make it illegal; going to court against an HOA is a civil matter, so the issue of whether something is illegal or not is irrelevant. Going to court because you broke the state's rules is a criminal matter. When something is illegal, you call the cops and let the state prosecution handle it. When something isn't illegal, you have to directly sue the respondent(s) yourself and handle the matter yourself. So, yeah, there's a big difference between getting prosecuted by the state in criminal court for defecating on your lawn and getting sued in civil court by the HOA for breaking the contract. There's no circular reasoning there at all: one of those things ends up in a certain type of court, the other ends up in a different type of court. > People have the exact same recourse against HOAs as they have against the state because the HOA's authority derives entirely from the state. No, you have more recourse against the state when the state breaks the rules, and not just because the state has many more limitations on their rules than a HOA. For just one example, the state may not prohibit political speech of one party and encourage political speech of another party, while the HOA has no such limitation. For that you have no recourse agains the HOA, but you *will* have recourse if the state attempted it. > It really is just another level of government. It really isn't. There's a particularly large difference between criminal and civil trials. There's a difference between what a juristic person is allowed and what an arm of the state is allowed (one of those two aren't allowed to suppress speech, for example, while the other can). There's a difference in the enforcement that is allowed (for HOA: fines only, and then go to civil court for an order, for the state: arrest, then prosecution). There's a difference in the levels of enforcement allowed (HOA has no choice but to launch civil proceedings, while the state is fully within its rights to use force, deadly or otherwise). They really aren't the same. The rules of an HOA is a meeting-of-the-minds contract between two juristic persons. Any "contract" is not a contract if one of those people don't agree (signed under duress, for example). The laws of the state does not require the citizen to agree; there is no contract because the citizen has to abide by those laws whether or not they agree to them.

by 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
  I still don't see how that is circular reasoning. Where do you find a conclusion that is supported by itself? > It doesn't matter whether that "someone else" is "the government" or "the HOA board" It's not an "or", it's an "and" and that makes all the difference. The reality is that in all cases, having both a Party A AND a Party B make your decisions for you is objectively worse than simply having Party A or Party B make the decision. Having an HOA make you decisions for you doesn't make the state's decisions go away. Doing away with the HOA only leaves a single irritation. > 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, There is a large distinction of "having many different parties with authority over you" and "having one party with authority over you". The HOA isn't a single party that has authority over you, it is composed of multiple people who make take turns invoking the HOA rules against you. The state is a different matter - there are repercussions to individuals and appeals to an impartial third-party when the state invokes a rule against you. You simply cannot equivocate an HOA with the state. People have recourse against the state.
  - lisper 5y ago
    > I still don't see how that is circular reasoning. Where do you find a conclusion that is supported by itself? Here: > > 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 How do you think HOAs enforce their restrictions? When push comes to shove, disputes with HOAs get settled in courts, which are an arm of the state. > You simply cannot equivocate an HOA with the state. People have recourse against the state. People have the exact same recourse against HOAs as they have against the state because the HOA's authority derives entirely from the state. HOAs do not have their own enforcement mechanisms. And HOA boards are elected just like the people who run the state(s) in the USA. It really is just another level of government.
    - lelanthran 5y ago
      >> I still don't see how that is circular reasoning. Where do you find a conclusion that is supported by itself? > >Here: > >> 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 > > How do you think HOAs enforce their restrictions? When push > comes to shove, disputes with HOAs get settled in courts, > which are an arm of the state. So? That doesn't make it illegal; going to court against an HOA is a civil matter, so the issue of whether something is illegal or not is irrelevant. Going to court because you broke the state's rules is a criminal matter. When something is illegal, you call the cops and let the state prosecution handle it. When something isn't illegal, you have to directly sue the respondent(s) yourself and handle the matter yourself. So, yeah, there's a big difference between getting prosecuted by the state in criminal court for defecating on your lawn and getting sued in civil court by the HOA for breaking the contract. There's no circular reasoning there at all: one of those things ends up in a certain type of court, the other ends up in a different type of court. > People have the exact same recourse against HOAs as they have against the state because the HOA's authority derives entirely from the state. No, you have more recourse against the state when the state breaks the rules, and not just because the state has many more limitations on their rules than a HOA. For just one example, the state may not prohibit political speech of one party and encourage political speech of another party, while the HOA has no such limitation. For that you have no recourse agains the HOA, but you *will* have recourse if the state attempted it. > It really is just another level of government. It really isn't. There's a particularly large difference between criminal and civil trials. There's a difference between what a juristic person is allowed and what an arm of the state is allowed (one of those two aren't allowed to suppress speech, for example, while the other can). There's a difference in the enforcement that is allowed (for HOA: fines only, and then go to civil court for an order, for the state: arrest, then prosecution). There's a difference in the levels of enforcement allowed (HOA has no choice but to launch civil proceedings, while the state is fully within its rights to use force, deadly or otherwise). They really aren't the same. The rules of an HOA is a meeting-of-the-minds contract between two juristic persons. Any "contract" is not a contract if one of those people don't agree (signed under duress, for example). The laws of the state does not require the citizen to agree; there is no contract because the citizen has to abide by those laws whether or not they agree to them.