Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 19 Jun 2012, 16:30

fyodor wrote:To me the question there is whether or not the state should enforce HOA arrangements. You've already stated you think it should. I don't see where you've explained why that implies I should rethink libertarian principles. I've actually done more to explain that (in prior posts since you've brought this up) than you have. I still have the ability NOT to live under an HOA. What's libertarian to me is that I don't want to TAKE AWAY the choice TO live under an HOA from people who would freely choose to do so (the sometimes vagueries of the contractual process therein notwithstanding).
If people really want to live in a community where nobody can plant more than 2 types of flowers, and they agree to it, have at it. If they sign it, enforce it. Fine.

My point is that I see people using libertarian-preferred means of establishing local rules, and they often wind up with more nannyism rather than less. I'm not proposing that anybody should stop them in any coercive manner (not even with perfectly legal coercion, via government policy). But when I see that the consequence of libertarian-preferred means is more nannyism rather than less, I start to wonder if our prescriptions for means have some flaw.

I don't question our prescriptions for outcomes: Ain't nuthin' wrong with fewer people being subject to nannyism and bullshit rules. But if our prescriptions for means lead to more nannyism and bullshit rules rather than less, maybe we need to rethink out prescribes means. That's not to say that the courts should stop enforcing legally valid contracts that people voluntarily gave informed consent to, but I'm not going to prescribe or encourage more such contracts as a means to reduce nannyism.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6814
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by fyodor » 19 Jun 2012, 16:33

It's a little absurd to call HOA's a libertarian thing per se. First of all, it's not just libertarians who are in favor of enforcing HOA agreements. Secondly, not all libertarians are full in favor of enforcing HOA agreements for the very reasons that thoreau (among others here) have brought up. In fact, thoreau, you said at the start that HOA's were god's way of confounding libertarians. I've called it a paradox from a libertarian POV from the start but I also fall on the side of enforcing the arrangements (while also open to the restrictions Mo and Jason have suggested) for the reason of, as I stated in my last post, not wanting to restrict the freedom of others to willfully enter into such an agreement, which I would say is very consistent with libertarian principles, even if it creates a little fiefdom of willing bickerers. That's their problem. Just as allowing boxing allows for willing violent combatants.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22346
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Mo » 19 Jun 2012, 16:38

Ayn_Randian wrote:It depends on the state. In states where mortgages are liens on property, you have the title right away, and the mortgage company can foreclose to recover the lien. In all instances, you own your car title.
As someone who literally last week dealt with this, you are wrong. There is a designation on your car title that indicates that there is a lien on the title and you are to attach the letter from the bank indicating that you paid it off. You can then call the state to have that designation removed and it will show that you have the title free and clear.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 19 Jun 2012, 16:39

Whether existing HOAs should be enforced is an uninteresting point to me. The contracts are there, they are (apparently valid), and if there's one thing we've learned on grylliade it's that bad shit goes down when I suggest that judges should rule differently than they usually do!

I'm more interested in whether we, as libertarians, should say that it is good to establish more communities governed by these sorts of contracts, and whether we should view these sorts of communities as a step toward a more libertarian future. There are libertarian arguments in favor of these sorts of things, but when I see the outcomes I wonder about the arguments. Since my paramount interest is having people subject to fewer bullshit rules and nannyish nonsense, I conclude that these sorts of contracts, at least in their common forms, might not be much of a path to a freer future. If people want them anyway, well, fine, but I won't be jumping on any bandwagons for them.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6814
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by fyodor » 19 Jun 2012, 16:51

thoreau wrote:Whether existing HOAs should be enforced is an uninteresting point to me. The contracts are there, they are (apparently valid), and if there's one thing we've learned on grylliade it's that bad shit goes down when I suggest that judges should rule differently than they usually do!

I'm more interested in whether we, as libertarians, should say that it is good to establish more communities governed by these sorts of contracts
I'd say the libertarian thing to say is that it's up to the people involved, not anyone else. (Except where violations of rights are concerned, and that's the whole question to begin with, so if you're not interested in that, why should I be interested in anything else you ask ostensibly in the name of libertarianism?)
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
GinSlinger
Posts: 3624
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:49
Location: Here today, gone tomorrow

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by GinSlinger » 19 Jun 2012, 16:53

D.A. Ridgely wrote: More relevantly, no, the law of contract didn't entirely evolve from, as you phrase it, obligations on property. Yes, at the height of Feudal Europe the law focused primarily on a person's status and that status was inextricably related to a hierarchy focusing on real property. But even then there was an incipient merchant class and principles of Roman civil law were still part of the background of the development of the Common Law. I believe legal historians would generally credit Assumpsit and Debt, in particular, as the forms of action from which more contemporary laws of contract originate in Anglo American law. Not so much Covenant. Moreover, as legal remedies for breach of contract, however characterized at Common Law, were eventually sometimes seen as inadequate, Chancery offered equitable remedies. Then there's the evolution of quasi-contractual relief based on detrimental reliance or unjust enrichment, the former especially going to persons' actions irrespective of seals or sureties, solemn covenants, etc. Anyway...
I should probably bow out of this, since it's not even my tertiary field and I am so far from my notes. Still, when you return, can you tell me how wrong I am in remembering that both Debt and Assumpsit were matters of real obligation as opposed to personal obligation? I understand that Assumpsit eventually evolved to include personal, but when it was resurrected in the 15th century, wasn't it a tort of trespass for real damages? Isn't it because there were no common law remedies for personal obligations that executors were required to take up bonds (into the eighteenth century)?

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21851
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by JasonL » 19 Jun 2012, 16:57

I have no real problem with the contracts that can't be solved by periodic re-up and/or some scope limiting. I just don't want to wake up in a land of interconnected nannyish HOAs where powers entrenched from 30 years ago when the HOA formed get to wag their fingers at everyone with the only recourse being to live under the despot two streets over.

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 19 Jun 2012, 16:58

fyodor wrote:
thoreau wrote:Whether existing HOAs should be enforced is an uninteresting point to me. The contracts are there, they are (apparently valid), and if there's one thing we've learned on grylliade it's that bad shit goes down when I suggest that judges should rule differently than they usually do!

I'm more interested in whether we, as libertarians, should say that it is good to establish more communities governed by these sorts of contracts
I'd say the libertarian thing to say is that it's up to the people involved, not anyone else. (Except where violations of rights are concerned, and that's the whole question to begin with, so if you're not interested in that, why should I be interested in anything else you ask ostensibly in the name of libertarianism?)
If the idea of an HOA emerges fully-formed from the mind of a busybody and some would-be neighbors, and they agree to it and buy property and sign contracts knowing exactly what they are getting into, fine. Have at it.

But most people don't derive the idea of an HOA from first principles and then create one. They join one because it's there. And libertarians sometimes talk about ways to move forward toward a freer society, and I've sometimes seen people mention these sorts of contractual arrangements as something to applaud. I say that if people really want to make trouble for themselves we can't stop them, but there's no need to encourage it, let alone applaud it. There's no need to say that a good way to move toward a future with greater freedom is to encourage (in whatever non-coercive way) these sorts of communities.

Again, if people really want it, and it's there, and they join it, and the contract is enforceable, well, the courts will do what they do. But I look at some developments in society and say "Progress!" and I look at others and say "Well, that's a shame!"
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 19 Jun 2012, 16:58

JasonL wrote:I have no real problem with the contracts that can't be solved by periodic re-up and/or some scope limiting. I just don't want to wake up in a land of interconnected nannyish HOAs where powers entrenched from 30 years ago when the HOA formed get to wag their fingers at everyone with the only recourse being to live under the despot two streets over.
Seems reasonable to me.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
Ayn_Randian
Posts: 10727
Joined: 08 May 2010, 14:58

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Ayn_Randian » 19 Jun 2012, 17:11

Mo, you can still own your title and have a lien on it. that was my point.
It has the effect of making me want desperately to do the opposite of what Green Day is suggesting I should want to do. Billy Joe Whassname may have created a generation of war mongers. - Jason L

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6555
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Jadagul » 19 Jun 2012, 17:13

fyodor wrote:Jadagul, I think you'll find that how you use words is more important than what words you use. Which may seem paradoxical, since how you use words is governed by what words you use them in conjunction with, but the idea is that it's a process, a thought process and a rhetorical process, that rarely if ever comes down to individual words.

To wit, I admit that people may treat the concept of "rights" in a metaphysical manner, and I don't know what to do about that other than to use the concept in a way that comports to reality myself. You would rather people speak in terms of "justice" -- well, what's to stop them from using that concept as if it had metaphysical properties as well? Because you define it such that it's not metaphysical? It's far from clear to me why either word or concept lends itself more or less to misuse than the other.

It's fine and good to separate words out for your own purposes. But you should be careful not to think that doing so constitutes, in and of itself, one form of argumentation over another.

Regarding the naturalness of rights, I kinda take a middle road. I think it's roughly analogous to (hey!) mathematics. I've heard in the past that there's a debate over whether math is natural or manmade. And I think this layman would conclude that it's a combination of both in that the relationships that math describes and systemizes exist in nature, but the means of describing and systemizing them is manmade. Somewhat the same with rights. Of course they're ultimately manmade. It's not like they pop out of the ground on their own like ferns or dandelions. Any concept is manmade because we do the conceiving. And rights are concepts. There is built into the concept, from my POV, two aspects that associate it with conceptions of nature. One is that rights are conferred to one by the mere fact of your very being. That is, you don't earn rights. Well, not all of them, anyway. There might be some rights you earn, but some are yours simply because you are a living human. Thus, it's not out of line to call such rights "human" or "natural" rights. The other aspect, and this is the one that reminds me of the math dichotomy, is that it would seem to make most sense to assign rights in comportment with a realistic understanding of human nature. The institution of rights works best when our understanding of human nature is at its most insightful and realistic. Now, does it benefit our discussion of rights to stress this in our discussion of rights, is it useful? Or is it more useful to stress the ultimately manmade aspect of the concept (like any concept)? I don't necessarily know, it may depend on the context. I personally don't use "natural rights" much if at all. But I don't think someone is necessarily being metaphysical or way off base to do so.

Of course, I'm sure this has put an end to the need to discuss the matter further! :)
And your middle road is exactly what I'm disagreeing with--for math and for rights. Your position on math is the one most mathematicians take; part of my project is to convince them they're wrong. Hence, "fucking Godel."

I think "justice" works better than "rights" (marginally--the English language actually isn't well suited for the kind of distinctions I really want to draw) because it makes it sound like rights are a thing that exists. And also that they're more than tools to accomplish something. Justice is really just a catchall term for "whatever we're trying to accomplish" and so is less...problematic? Because justice certainly exists, since we're trying to accomplish something, and whatever that is, that's justice. But I think maybe I can make my point better by abandoning this line of argument and resuming from within the main discussion going on here, so I'm going to do that, I think.

User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 6555
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Jadagul » 19 Jun 2012, 17:15

fyodor wrote:
thoreau wrote:Whether existing HOAs should be enforced is an uninteresting point to me. The contracts are there, they are (apparently valid), and if there's one thing we've learned on grylliade it's that bad shit goes down when I suggest that judges should rule differently than they usually do!

I'm more interested in whether we, as libertarians, should say that it is good to establish more communities governed by these sorts of contracts
I'd say the libertarian thing to say is that it's up to the people involved, not anyone else. (Except where violations of rights are concerned, and that's the whole question to begin with, so if you're not interested in that, why should I be interested in anything else you ask ostensibly in the name of libertarianism?)
I think this is rather precisely what we're disagreeing with. If "the libertarian position" is just about what the government should do, then yeah, you're right. But if libertarianism is about creating a way for people to live with minimal interference in how they live their lives, then we can have a conversation about whether HOAs give people more or less control over how they live their lives. Because the difference between an HOA and a government is pretty academic and doesn't really mean anything. I mean, if you renamed the HOA to be "a municipal government", what would really change?

User avatar
Mo
Posts: 22346
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Mo » 19 Jun 2012, 17:23

Ayn_Randian wrote:Mo, you can still own your title and have a lien on it. that was my point.
My point is that you don't own it free and clear until it is paid off and this is indicated on the title itself. Only after it is paid off is all reference to someone else having a potential claim removed. This is why you can't do a short sale without the bank's approval. If you truly owned the title, the bank would have no say in the price that you sell your house for.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11688
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 19 Jun 2012, 17:29

Mo wrote:
Eric the .5b wrote:What are "libertarian results"? Hell, what are "statist results" in this context? I may rant about statists, but I know they aren't generally against information exchange, creative collaboration, apple pie, etc. If they were, we wouldn't still have the internet.
At risk of speaking for thoreau, I think he means a general live and let live attitude (leave me alone and I'll leave you alone) rather than worrying about whether the process came about by legislation vs. a contractual agreement where people then vote in a process almost exactly the same as the current one. The reason many of us are attracted to libertarianism has to do with the fact that we believe that if we are left alone and leave governance to the areas where there are genuine conflicts over externalities* that things would be better overall. We are not attracted to it because we think bad rules are made better just because someone signs a contract agreeing to democratic governance. I suppose what irks us is the outcomes of the HOAs, which are supposed to more closely resemble libertarian governance, is that they end up being just as, if not more, petty and nannyish as bog standard democratic governance.
I don't get what's so "libertarian" about HOAs. As pointed out, the idea of private contracts and agreements predates anyone calling themselves libertarians. A bunch of libertarians could start an HOA if they wanted to, I guess.

To me, the ability to be left alone includes the ability to agree not to be left alone on some matters. You make an agreement to pay back a loan or abide by some rules to live in an area. Being that most of the people making, enforcing, and signing into these HOA agreements aren't libertarians, the terms simply aren't going to be as MYOB as we would like. If they're too intrusive, then you don't move into their territory. Mine's been pretty useful without causing me any inconvenience, but it does have rules about excessive noise and people climbing around on rooftops (it's a townhome complex, so it has continuous rooftops and common walls). There's probably a rule against having open bonfires in our 10'x10' backyards, and I'm willing to sacrifice that to avoid suddenly being caught in a housefire.

When we talk about externalities, we generally think that should be limited to what we consider serious harms. These HOA rules are people agreeing upon a lower threshold of harm when it comes to externalities, in order to avoid loss of market value to their homes. I think people have a right to make such agreements, and I think we should leave them alone even if the terms of the agreements don't suit us.

Hell, one of the old ideas I used to see thrown around a lot is that in a libertarian system, "socialists" or anyone who wanted a more restricted way of life could make a private agreement to live in a commune or whatever they wanted. This is what that looks like.

Or from another angle. Maybe tenure changed this, but before getting that, Thoreau made a private contract to work as his university, but he has to know when not to say things that will overly offend the left-wingers he works with, or else he'll get grief in some form. Is that an un-libertarian result showing the "fuzziness" of the free market or having the right to seek your own employment ? I don't think so, and I doubt that "not offending left-wing twits" is even a requirement in his contract.

I can understand balking at the "The boss wants to bang you - you can quit if you don't like it!" or indentured servitude extreme-edge-case stuff, but this isn't anywhere near that. This is "some jobs suck"-level stuff. Especially in this economy, it's not even a first-world problem, it's a "well-situated middle-class guy" problem.
Last edited by Eric the .5b on 19 Jun 2012, 17:37, edited 2 times in total.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
GinSlinger
Posts: 3624
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:49
Location: Here today, gone tomorrow

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by GinSlinger » 19 Jun 2012, 17:31

Jadagul wrote: I think "justice" works better than "rights" (marginally--the English language actually isn't well suited for the kind of distinctions I really want to draw) because it makes it sound like rights are a thing that exists. And also that they're more than tools to accomplish something. Justice is really just a catchall term for "whatever we're trying to accomplish" and so is less...problematic? Because justice certainly exists, since we're trying to accomplish something, and whatever that is, that's justice. But I think maybe I can make my point better by abandoning this line of argument and resuming from within the main discussion going on here, so I'm going to do that, I think.
"The justice of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." Yeah, that doesn't work for me. How is "justice" any more real than "right"?

User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 21851
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by JasonL » 19 Jun 2012, 17:36

GinSlinger wrote:
Jadagul wrote: I think "justice" works better than "rights" (marginally--the English language actually isn't well suited for the kind of distinctions I really want to draw) because it makes it sound like rights are a thing that exists. And also that they're more than tools to accomplish something. Justice is really just a catchall term for "whatever we're trying to accomplish" and so is less...problematic? Because justice certainly exists, since we're trying to accomplish something, and whatever that is, that's justice. But I think maybe I can make my point better by abandoning this line of argument and resuming from within the main discussion going on here, so I'm going to do that, I think.
"The justice of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." Yeah, that doesn't work for me. How is "justice" any more real than "right"?
I'm not a natural rights guy, but if you have to pick a name for "principles we feel should be violated only under severe necessity and here's a bunch of hurdles you have to jump to stop your willy nilly ass from being all up in people's business", "rights" is every bit as good as "justice", and I'd say better. I think more people get what you mean by rights than get what you mean by justice, and it isn't close.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6814
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by fyodor » 19 Jun 2012, 18:06

Jadagul wrote:
fyodor wrote:
thoreau wrote:Whether existing HOAs should be enforced is an uninteresting point to me. The contracts are there, they are (apparently valid), and if there's one thing we've learned on grylliade it's that bad shit goes down when I suggest that judges should rule differently than they usually do!

I'm more interested in whether we, as libertarians, should say that it is good to establish more communities governed by these sorts of contracts
I'd say the libertarian thing to say is that it's up to the people involved, not anyone else. (Except where violations of rights are concerned, and that's the whole question to begin with, so if you're not interested in that, why should I be interested in anything else you ask ostensibly in the name of libertarianism?)
I think this is rather precisely what we're disagreeing with. If "the libertarian position" is just about what the government should do, then yeah, you're right. But if libertarianism is about creating a way for people to live with minimal interference in how they live their lives, then we can have a conversation about whether HOAs give people more or less control over how they live their lives. Because the difference between an HOA and a government is pretty academic and doesn't really mean anything. I mean, if you renamed the HOA to be "a municipal government", what would really change?
If the "libertarian position" is not just about what the government should do, then why do you compare HOA's to governments to elucidate why they should be considered a problem for libertarians?

As to "libertarianism is about creating a way for people to live with minimal interference in how they live their lives", well, y'know, I'm not interested in "creating ways" for how other people should live their lives, and I don't think that's very libertarian, because I think that's a form of interference itself! I have also made abundantly clear on this thread that I don't ever want to live under an HOA myself and abhor the idea. So if the question here is whether HOA's are "good", then my answer would be no. But that doesn't mean I would want to restrict someone else from joining one. But then, the very idea of that raises the question of what government should do because that's the only way to restrict someone from joining an HOA, so we're kinda going in circles here....

I should say that I actually do think that libertarianism is first and foremost a philosophy of public policy. It's built on principles of human interaction that most people have little problem with as applied to most human interaction, but what's unique about libertarianism is that it applies those same principles to public policy as well. I've repeated many times in this forum that the sentiments that led me to libertarianism can also be used as a good guide for addressing issues of soft power, but I would still say libertarianism itself is about public policy. FWIW....

What are we disagreeing about again?
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
Eric the .5b
Posts: 11688
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 16:29

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Eric the .5b » 19 Jun 2012, 18:12

thoreau wrote:My point is that I see people using libertarian-preferred means of establishing local rules, and they often wind up with more nannyism rather than less. I'm not proposing that anybody should stop them in any coercive manner (not even with perfectly legal coercion, via government policy). But when I see that the consequence of libertarian-preferred means is more nannyism rather than less, I start to wonder if our prescriptions for means have some flaw.

I don't question our prescriptions for outcomes: Ain't nuthin' wrong with fewer people being subject to nannyism and bullshit rules. But if our prescriptions for means lead to more nannyism and bullshit rules rather than less, maybe we need to rethink out prescribes means. That's not to say that the courts should stop enforcing legally valid contracts that people voluntarily gave informed consent to, but I'm not going to prescribe or encourage more such contracts as a means to reduce nannyism.
Emphasis added.

OK, let me put this to you - how would you demonstrate that this is actually happening? I assume you don't mean some sort of libertarian Brezhnev Doctrine where "libertarianism" lose if anyone chooses more restriction than we would. I assume you mean that more people are living under more restrictions because of HOA agreements as opposed to City Hall getting involved because someone complained about them having too many Christmas lights on their house.
Last edited by Eric the .5b on 19 Jun 2012, 18:14, edited 1 time in total.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
"Cyberpunk never really gave the government enough credit for their ability to secure a favorable prenup during the Corporate-State wedding." - Shem

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6814
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by fyodor » 19 Jun 2012, 18:14

JasonL wrote:
GinSlinger wrote:
Jadagul wrote: I think "justice" works better than "rights" (marginally--the English language actually isn't well suited for the kind of distinctions I really want to draw) because it makes it sound like rights are a thing that exists. And also that they're more than tools to accomplish something. Justice is really just a catchall term for "whatever we're trying to accomplish" and so is less...problematic? Because justice certainly exists, since we're trying to accomplish something, and whatever that is, that's justice. But I think maybe I can make my point better by abandoning this line of argument and resuming from within the main discussion going on here, so I'm going to do that, I think.
"The justice of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . ." Yeah, that doesn't work for me. How is "justice" any more real than "right"?
I'm not a natural rights guy, but if you have to pick a name for "principles we feel should be violated only under severe necessity and here's a bunch of hurdles you have to jump to stop your willy nilly ass from being all up in people's business", "rights" is every bit as good as "justice", and I'd say better. I think more people get what you mean by rights than get what you mean by justice, and it isn't close.
Bravo!

Hell, maybe it's good that people think that "rights" are concrete things even if they're not!

But if you really have a problem with people thinking that, the way in which you use the word is probably more important than avoiding its use. Personally "justice" seems like the most abstract thing going.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6814
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by fyodor » 19 Jun 2012, 18:18

Eric the .5b wrote: Hell, one of the old ideas I used to see thrown around a lot is that in a libertarian system, "socialists" or anyone who wanted a more restricted way of life could make a private agreement to live in a commune or whatever they wanted. This is what that looks like.
Yeah, I made pretty much that point in this thread's early years. It's ironic cause you don't usually think of HOA members as socialists or commune hippies, but it's still very much the same principle. (Although "co-housing" is sorta in between....)
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 17782
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by D.A. Ridgely » 19 Jun 2012, 18:34

GinSlinger wrote:
D.A. Ridgely wrote: More relevantly, no, the law of contract didn't entirely evolve from, as you phrase it, obligations on property. Yes, at the height of Feudal Europe the law focused primarily on a person's status and that status was inextricably related to a hierarchy focusing on real property. But even then there was an incipient merchant class and principles of Roman civil law were still part of the background of the development of the Common Law. I believe legal historians would generally credit Assumpsit and Debt, in particular, as the forms of action from which more contemporary laws of contract originate in Anglo American law. Not so much Covenant. Moreover, as legal remedies for breach of contract, however characterized at Common Law, were eventually sometimes seen as inadequate, Chancery offered equitable remedies. Then there's the evolution of quasi-contractual relief based on detrimental reliance or unjust enrichment, the former especially going to persons' actions irrespective of seals or sureties, solemn covenants, etc. Anyway...
I should probably bow out of this, since it's not even my tertiary field and I am so far from my notes. Still, when you return, can you tell me how wrong I am in remembering that both Debt and Assumpsit were matters of real obligation as opposed to personal obligation? I understand that Assumpsit eventually evolved to include personal, but when it was resurrected in the 15th century, wasn't it a tort of trespass for real damages? Isn't it because there were no common law remedies for personal obligations that executors were required to take up bonds (into the eighteenth century)?
Well, Hell, Ginslinger, if you're going to go all reasonable and scholarly on me, I should acknowledge that my, um, notes are roughly 25 years away from me, albeit with an occasional glance at a note or case to refresh my memory or, as may well be the case, misremembering. Moreover, although for the life of me I still can't see how it's relevant to a contemporary discussion of legal personhood and property, let alone an ethical discussion of same, I long ago packed away my Corbin and Williston and any pretensions I may have had to be a contract law scholar.

But that said, while a brief perusal of Maitland on the development of the Forms of Action and Assumpsit in particular seems to support my gloss, I'll be damned if I can say that it also clearly contradicts yours.

Isaac Bartram
Posts: 1098
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:45

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by Isaac Bartram » 19 Jun 2012, 18:46

Stevo Darkly wrote:
Stevo Darkly wrote:
GinSlinger wrote:
Stevo Darkly wrote: Maybe I should send him a follow-up that GS mentioned seeing Isaac posting on HR just a week ago, and then I guess I should apologize for being intrusive about his Internet whereabouts bidnizz, although we'd still love to see him drop by sometime.

Anyway, good to know he's still active on H&R.
To be clear, dbcooper was the one who spotted him.
Oops, right -- noted.
BTW, Isaac responded to my note to confirm that he is well and doing fine, and he says hi. He has just had to curtail the time he spends online because it can take up an awful lot of, well, time.

However, legends say that he does still lurk here once in a while.
Thanks, Stevo.

Oh, and as to this thread, if you don't want to live under an HOA don't buy property in a covenanted subdivision. Good luck using the same strategy to get out from under the thumb of any government.

User avatar
fyodor
Posts: 6814
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:18

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by fyodor » 19 Jun 2012, 18:49

The GinSlinger has brought the Miracle of the Humility and Conciliation from the DAR, and I prostrate myself in Awe.
Your optimism just confuses and enrages me. - Timothy

User avatar
thoreau
Posts: 25396
Joined: 06 May 2010, 12:56
Location: Back to the lab again

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by thoreau » 19 Jun 2012, 18:52

Eric the .5b wrote:I can understand balking at the "The boss wants to bang you - you can quit if you don't like it!" or indentured servitude extreme-edge-case stuff, but this isn't anywhere near that. This is "some jobs suck"-level stuff. Especially in this economy, it's not even a first-world problem, it's a "well-situated middle-class guy" problem.
Agreed. I'm not interested in this because I consider it some sort of awful oppression to have white curtains. I'm interested in it as a sort of low-stakes experiment in "What happens when you let people sort out some local rules through contracts rather than municipal government?" I see it as a window into human behavior, with some surprising findings, not a horrific problem in its own right.

FWIW, I was fascinated by this long before I bought into an HOA community. I found a 2007 UO post on it:

http://highclearing.com/index.php/archi ... 08/15/6968

One thing I take away from this is that being governed by neighboring stakeholders isn't necessarily any better than being governed by people far away. OTOH, it's clear that farther-removed rulers generally lack enough local knowledge to make things work. I suspect that the best compromise is if the higher levels of government/authority/whatever set floors on rights but not ceilings, and the administration of systems of rules is largely left to the local level. So, Santa Monica can go hog-wild in conferring rights, but the rules that they can impose are limited by state and federal law. Bloomberg can do, um, whatever it is that he wants to do that's actually good (this assumes, dubiously, that he has good things on his agenda), but he can't ban soda. And so forth.
"ike Wile E. Coyote salivating over a "4000 Ways To Prepare Roadrunner" cookbook without watching his surroundings, the Road Runner of Societal Inertia snuck up on them both and beepbeeped them off the mesa."
--Shem

User avatar
GinSlinger
Posts: 3624
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 20:49
Location: Here today, gone tomorrow

Re: Rules, RVs, and a four-story phallus: the HOA thread

Post by GinSlinger » 19 Jun 2012, 18:53

D.A. Ridgely wrote:Well, Hell, Ginslinger, if you're going to go all reasonable and scholarly on me, I should acknowledge that my, um, notes are roughly 25 years away from me, albeit with an occasional glance at a note or case to refresh my memory or, as may well be the case, misremembering. Moreover, although for the life of me I still can't see how it's relevant to a contemporary discussion of legal personhood and property, let alone an ethical discussion of same, I long ago packed away my Corbin and Williston and any pretensions I may have had to be a contract law scholar.
Sorry.

As to how I see relevance, and I understand I'm probably way off is very briefly: Lex Mercatoria opened up a new understanding of contract, that it could be recoverable for dereliction of personal obligation (by failing to perform duties) (it also streamline the difference between failure to deliver goods or money and debt), and that when the common law embraced this concept it do so in part by giving personal obligations a veneer of real obligations. Now, I'm probably way off base in it (because I haven't studied how the evolution occurred), but I thought the blurring of distinction between personal and real was connected with concepts of self-ownership in philosophy/politics.

So, it probably isn't relevant since it's likely wrong.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests