How about zone it single family and let people not buy there if they don't want to live with that?
Property rights aren't absolute. You can't move in next door and start burning tires because it's "your property." You're still shitting up the neighborhood, which is infringing on everyone else's property rights. Building nigger and spic dormitories isn't a property right.
How about zone it single family and let people not buy there if they don't want to live with that?
But what about people who want to live there but don't want to live in a single family home? What if they want a condo?
You can let the people form their own cooperatives without interfering with the government. If people want a home owners' association (or land owners), they can form it and ratify it with municipal blessing.
If you haven't noticed, I'm not an authoritarian. I prefer to let the people decide. The government doesn't need to baby sit every list thing we do.
If you haven't noticed, I'm not an authoritarian. I prefer to let the people decide. The government doesn't need to baby sit every list thing we do.
You are authoritarian, you just have a different opinion of who should be in authority. Rights that can be voted away by others are not rights. 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. 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.
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.
(post is archived)