You are authoritarian, you just have a different opinion of who should be in authority.
Incorrect. I gave an opinion on reducing government regulation and reach and, instead, put the decisions on free-association between the individuals actually living in the neighborhoods. This is literally libertarianism the exact opposite of authoritarianism.
Rights that can be voted away by others are not rights.
This topic is wholly separate from the one we are discussion and you're referring to majoritarianism or tyranny by the majority. There are no "natural rights" when it comes to home owners associations. It's whatever the majority wants and you have to suck it or move.
That's like leaving it up to your neighbors whether you're allowed to fly an American flag on your property or whether you're allowed to own firearms.
"The powerful protections afforded by the First Amendment do not prevent individuals from privately entering into agreements that restrict the speech rights of one or both parties to the agreement." Don't like the HOA rules? Get them changed. Can't get them changed? Move. You don't need the state to dictate those rules and regulate it for you.
It's no less authoritarian for a group of your neighbors to deny you your rights than it is for government to do the same.
This fundamentally obfuscates, unnecessarily, the differences between libertarianism and authoritarianism. These are literally the exact opposite. What you've done is made those concepts meaningless because you're confusing free-association with government forced regulation.
Incorrect. I gave an opinion on reducing government regulation and reach and, instead, put the decisions on free-association between the individuals actually living in the neighborhoods.
It's not free association if your neighbors can coerce you to do something.
This is literally libertarianism the exact opposite of authoritarianism.
Changing the people who have the authority does not change the nature of the relationship, only with whom you have the relationship. It makes zero difference whether it's a city council voting to take my rights away or my neighbors. There is zero difference.
Don't like the HOA rules? Get them changed. Can't get them changed? Move.
How do you live with the delusion that this is somehow different than "Don't like the laws? Get them changed. Can't get them changed? Move."
You don't need the state to dictate those rules and regulate it for you.
Apparently I just need my neighbors to do it for me, according to some libertarians.
It's not free association if your neighbors can coerce you to do something.
Yes it is. You can just move. Or not buy a house in that housing addition. Or rent in that renting addition.
Changing the people who have the authority does not change the nature of the relationship
Yes it most certainly does.
One is enforced by the state at gunpoint and/or imprisonment if you push it enough. The other is contracts between individuals who choose or choose not to associated with each other. This is the foundational difference between authoritarianism and libertarianism.
How do you live with the delusion that this is somehow different than "Don't like the laws? Get them changed. Can't get them changed? Move."
Because I can just move one neighborhood over if I don't like the HOA rules if I cannot get them changed. And in an HOA, I'm literally an automatic member. I just have to show up to the semi-annual meetings (or quarterly).
Changing laws is much more difficult, objectively, and scientifically. This has been proven over and over. To change the law, I have to be rich and have power. In an HOA, I just simply have to live there. And we all have the same power. If you're too much of an asshole that no one likes you, that's on you.
Apparently I just need my neighbors to do it for me, according to some libertarians.
Correct. It's much easier to get free-association rules changed by talking to the 10-100 home owners in your HOA than it is to change the entire state's law or the federal law. It's easier to get the municipal laws changed but much harder than getting HOA rules changed. This is also why lawyers and real estate agents strongly recommend you participate in your HOA: you have the greatest amount of power to make a meaningful change with your HOA than you do anywhere else.
Yes it is. You can just move. Or not buy a house in that housing addition. Or rent in that renting addition.
How is that different than "you just move if you don't like the city government's rules, or not buy a house there"? It's not. You're literally replacing one authority with the exact same thing that just have a different name.
One is enforced by the state at gunpoint and/or imprisonment if you push it enough. The other is contracts between individuals who choose or choose not to associated with each other. This is the foundational difference between authoritarianism and libertarianism.
Except that's not what you're proposing. What contract do you enter into if you purchase a home with an HOA that you don't enter into when you buy a home in a specific city? They both have a list of rules that you can look up before you buy. In both cases you can choose not to buy. Each state is different, but in many states the HOA is more authoritarian than the city. An HOA can foreclose on your house, something a city cannot do for code violations.
And HOAs are just as prone to corruption and apathetic voters as governments. I see it play out time and time again. You cannot construct a successful system that relies in whole or in part on changing human nature. That's why communism fails every time, and it's why any system that grants individuals power over other individuals will always have the same result - whether it's power over a city block or over a state.
Correct. It's much easier to get free-association rules changed by talking to the 10-100 home owners in your HOA than it is to change the entire state's law or the federal law.
Codes are city-level.
(post is archived)