3 ms·

The more a person is dependent on "associated or local governments" [1] relative to "national or supernational governments", the more freedom they enjoy. This

The more a person is dependent on "associated or local governments" [1] relative to "national or supernational governments", the more freedom they enjoy. This is somewhat counter-intuitive because one might think that if e.g. every resident of a nation had to obey a singular and simple set of national rules, that would promote freedom more than having governments and rules differ between regions. I wont go deeply into the underlying mechanisms of why the more chaotic choice promotes freedom while the more orderly choice reduces freedom but it has something to do with organisations competing for members and members being willing/free to move between those organisations. [1] HOAs, school districts, unions, chapters, guilds, bars, insurances

eru 2y ago
I'm OK with national governments, if the nation in question is a city state. All hail Singapore!
em-bee 2y ago
but there is no competition among HOAs. there isn't enough freedom to move around. there isn't even a chaotic choice because most HOAs are the same. and when 80% of homes sold today are governed by an HOA there is also no choice not to join one. and i am not buying the whole argument. if we accept a hierarchy of governing structures, from the HOA at the bottom, and let's go all the way, the united nations at the top, each level has a a certain set of responsibilities and powers. the difference in the levels is determined by how centralized or distributed those are. but there is no escaping the levels. the problem is that it is unclear who is responsible to deal with overreach. in the US HOAs are largely unregulated, and so there is no protection against overreach. and in particular, they are not government but private organizations. i am of the opinion that mandatory membership in an organization makes that organization an extension of government, and thus it should be bound by the rules local governments must follow.
- kennethwolters 2y ago
  I anticipated this type of reply that states that for HOAs there is not enough freedom of movement and diversity of "HOA flavours" to reap the benefits of this localist/federalist system. And you are right. The situation seems dire and the question is how do we solve this problem? Do we do so by smashing HOAs (and giving the responsibilities to someone else)? I believe this is the wrong approach because it will destroy any potential for this localist (and thus inherently good, imo) system to heal. You're basically passing the baton onto another entity that might do a better job off the start but will inevitably fail because it is even less capable of evolving. I'd rather try to discourage rigidity/complacency and incentivise innovation in the HOA-space which is much more complex to implement but better than smashing HOAs. Regarding your point about "not buying the whole argument": I think it would be foolish to organise a military or pandemic-prevention-force on a municipal level. The levels need to exist and some higher levels have responsibilities that the lower levels don't have. I absolutely believe that this is good. In conclusion, somehow communities of a certain region need to be organised if they want to be organised, especially when the region is densely populated. I'd rather organise these communities through self-emergent associations than top-down mandated government. And yes, the self-emergent association-type HOA is broken. I'd rather fix it than replace it with a inherently worse alternative.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    sorry for not expressing myself clearly. by not buying the argument i was referring to the idea that we can be more or less dependent on levels of government. i believe we are always 100% dependent on all levels. but in some ways we are always less dependent on local levels of government because we can move. but i have the impression we are applying different definitions to terms here, especially to what it means to be dependent. for the most part i actually agree with you. i too favor a localist/federalist approach. and where i said you can't escape the levels, i might have added: nor should you want to. because as you say, the levels need to exist. one of the problems i see in the US is that while the system is doing relatively well at the federalist approach, not enough is done to protect the weaker individuals from those with power over them. especially at the local level. so while i agree that experimentation is good, certain basic rights need to be safeguarded. another thing is fixing vs replacing HOAs. again that comes down to what fixing or replacing mean. it is important to me that organizations that govern my life in a community are actually considered government. an HOA currently only involves homeowners, but not those who rent there. that's the first thing i would fix. so HOAs become neighborhood councils. and beyond that it is just a matter of levels. so if you mean that replacing local HOAs with a community council covering a larger area is a bad idea, then i agree with you. i mean to replace it with a different democratic structure at the same level, with largely the same responsibilities but with more clear restrictions to protect individual rights and freedoms.
    - em-bee 2y ago
      one of the problems i see in the US is that while the system is doing relatively well at the federalist approach, not enough is done to protect the weaker individuals from those with power over them. especially at the local level interestingly, i just came across this democracy index: https://www.democracymatrix.com/online-analysis/matrix#/chart1/United%20States%20of%20America/2023/core https://www.democracymatrix.com/online-analysis/matrix#/char... and it shows that "guarantee of rights" is the weakest, which fits my feelings

eru 2y ago

I'm OK with national governments, if the nation in question is a city state. All hail Singapore!

em-bee 2y ago

but there is no competition among HOAs. there isn't enough freedom to move around. there isn't even a chaotic choice because most HOAs are the same. and when 80% of homes sold today are governed by an HOA there is also no choice not to join one. and i am not buying the whole argument. if we accept a hierarchy of governing structures, from the HOA at the bottom, and let's go all the way, the united nations at the top, each level has a a certain set of responsibilities and powers. the difference in the levels is determined by how centralized or distributed those are. but there is no escaping the levels. the problem is that it is unclear who is responsible to deal with overreach. in the US HOAs are largely unregulated, and so there is no protection against overreach. and in particular, they are not government but private organizations. i am of the opinion that mandatory membership in an organization makes that organization an extension of government, and thus it should be bound by the rules local governments must follow.

kennethwolters 2y ago
I anticipated this type of reply that states that for HOAs there is not enough freedom of movement and diversity of "HOA flavours" to reap the benefits of this localist/federalist system. And you are right. The situation seems dire and the question is how do we solve this problem? Do we do so by smashing HOAs (and giving the responsibilities to someone else)? I believe this is the wrong approach because it will destroy any potential for this localist (and thus inherently good, imo) system to heal. You're basically passing the baton onto another entity that might do a better job off the start but will inevitably fail because it is even less capable of evolving. I'd rather try to discourage rigidity/complacency and incentivise innovation in the HOA-space which is much more complex to implement but better than smashing HOAs. Regarding your point about "not buying the whole argument": I think it would be foolish to organise a military or pandemic-prevention-force on a municipal level. The levels need to exist and some higher levels have responsibilities that the lower levels don't have. I absolutely believe that this is good. In conclusion, somehow communities of a certain region need to be organised if they want to be organised, especially when the region is densely populated. I'd rather organise these communities through self-emergent associations than top-down mandated government. And yes, the self-emergent association-type HOA is broken. I'd rather fix it than replace it with a inherently worse alternative.
- em-bee 2y ago
  sorry for not expressing myself clearly. by not buying the argument i was referring to the idea that we can be more or less dependent on levels of government. i believe we are always 100% dependent on all levels. but in some ways we are always less dependent on local levels of government because we can move. but i have the impression we are applying different definitions to terms here, especially to what it means to be dependent. for the most part i actually agree with you. i too favor a localist/federalist approach. and where i said you can't escape the levels, i might have added: nor should you want to. because as you say, the levels need to exist. one of the problems i see in the US is that while the system is doing relatively well at the federalist approach, not enough is done to protect the weaker individuals from those with power over them. especially at the local level. so while i agree that experimentation is good, certain basic rights need to be safeguarded. another thing is fixing vs replacing HOAs. again that comes down to what fixing or replacing mean. it is important to me that organizations that govern my life in a community are actually considered government. an HOA currently only involves homeowners, but not those who rent there. that's the first thing i would fix. so HOAs become neighborhood councils. and beyond that it is just a matter of levels. so if you mean that replacing local HOAs with a community council covering a larger area is a bad idea, then i agree with you. i mean to replace it with a different democratic structure at the same level, with largely the same responsibilities but with more clear restrictions to protect individual rights and freedoms.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    one of the problems i see in the US is that while the system is doing relatively well at the federalist approach, not enough is done to protect the weaker individuals from those with power over them. especially at the local level interestingly, i just came across this democracy index: https://www.democracymatrix.com/online-analysis/matrix#/chart1/United%20States%20of%20America/2023/core https://www.democracymatrix.com/online-analysis/matrix#/char... and it shows that "guarantee of rights" is the weakest, which fits my feelings