Political Theory

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Stranger — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:36:48 GMT

Metus:

So the only difference between a HOA and a state is the absense or presense of a explicit contract. What about someone moving in a state and agreeing to the constitution and laws explicitly? Would this make the state more legitimate?

For him it would be.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Metus — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:01:36 GMT

So the only difference between a HOA and a state is the absense or presense of a explicit contract. What about someone moving in a state and agreeing to the constitution and laws explicitly? Would this make the state more legitimate?

This seems to be a problem of semantics. If I own the house and the grounds it's standing on, I have the right over the use of it unless I give those rights away in a contract. If I don't own the grounds but am only granted the right to be there under certain conditions, the HOA is actually the legitimate owner of the territory and anyone who "inherits" the house inherits just the right to use the territory for themselves. From that point of view, a HOA can not possibly be a state, since you voluntarily agreed to their conditions, which is nothing new but maybe a somehow useful point.

Maybe this form of organization is a possibility for cities in an anarcho-capitalistic society?

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Jackson LaRose — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 00:04:24 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:
That is self-refuting . It is like saying that you voluntarily agree to be robbed.

I don't understand why.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

DanielMuff — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:48:48 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Daniel Muffinburg:
So if I claim territorial monopoly over my ranch, I am a state?

I don't see why not, unless someone more powerful comes along...

Daniel Muffinburg:
I doubt the OP has signed the Constitution, however, I am pretty sure that the OP signed the HOA agreement/contract.

I don't really understand how that is relevant. The only difference is that one agreement is implicit (abiding the constitution while being in the US) and the other explicit (formally signing a document stating you will abide by it while being in the HOA).

Daniel Muffinburg:
Furthermore, by your logic, states do not exist. Anyway, if I chose to live New York City, by your logic, I agree to be ruled by Michael Bloomberg. Likewise, if I live in Cuba, I have agreed to be ruled over by Castro. What is more, if a wife lives in her house and her husband claims territorial monopoly over said house, she agrees to be beaten daily by him, if he so chooses.

If you are living there voluntarily i.e., not restrained from leaving that geographic area, than yes, you are agreeing to exist how the territorial monopolizer deems appropriate.

That is self-refuting . It is like saying that you voluntarily agree to be robbed.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Michelangelo — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:39:08 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

I never understood this argument. How can you determine that a state has illegitimately squired property, whereas the HOA had done it legitimately. Seems like merely a question of personal aesthetics to me.

It is a matter of homesteading, is it not?

Let us suppose that two individuals have arrived in an uninhabited territory, they are Edward and Alphonse respectively. They proceed to homestead plots of land in said uninhabited territory. Over time they decide that they are better off cooperating one another for select services; namely in defense against wild animals. They write out a contract detailing the rules of their relationship and so forth. A perfect example of social contract theory. A home owners association would fall into this category, with exception.

Not let us suppose that same scenario, except Edward does not wish to enter in said relationship with Alphonse. Alphonse, being stronger than Edward, forces him to enter in said relationship with him under threat of force. While they may sign a token agreement, it is quite clear that Alphonse is not bound by the agreement and free to expand his powers as he wills. A state has been born.

Now of course it is debatable how one homesteads a territory. Is it simply sufficient for one to 'mix' their labour with the soil? How much labour must be mixed with the soil if so? ect. ect. To that I must say, let the market decide.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Stranger — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:35:54 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Stranger:
The HOA is just a business like any other. It's not more powerful than a drug lord or an insurance company. It has no leverage on institutions larger than itself.

I get that, but if it was the largest institution claiming sovereignty over that geographic area?

Then it would be just like a state, and it would have to fight it out with all other institutions all the time to maintain that sovereignty.

But this isn't how HOAs currently work.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Sage — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:26:27 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Daniel Muffinburg:
You joined the HOA voluntarily.

By that logic, staying in a country is a voluntary agreement to abide by the state's (an extremely large homeowner's association) laws.

No. The difference is that the tenant signed an explicit contract with the HOA, whereas there is no analogous contract with the state.

See Geoffrey Plauché's "On the Social Contract and the Persistence of Anarchy" for a good discussion.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:26:17 GMT

Michelangelo:
the HOA legitimately gained its power from the consent of individuals who agreed to agree to the rules of HOA. More specifically, a HOA only covers the territory that was legitimately assigned to it. A state on the other hand imposes its rule over non-consenting individuals and usually over territory that hasn't even been homesteaded yet.

I never understood this argument. How can you determine that a state has illegitimately squired property, whereas the HOA had done it legitimately. Seems like merely a question of personal aesthetics to me.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:24:14 GMT

Daniel Muffinburg:
So if I claim territorial monopoly over my ranch, I am a state?

I don't see why not, unless someone more powerful comes along...

Daniel Muffinburg:
I doubt the OP has signed the Constitution, however, I am pretty sure that the OP signed the HOA agreement/contract.

I don't really understand how that is relevant. The only difference is that one agreement is implicit (abiding the constitution while being in the US) and the other explicit (formally signing a document stating you will abide by it while being in the HOA).

Daniel Muffinburg:
Furthermore, by your logic, states do not exist. Anyway, if I chose to live New York City, by your logic, I agree to be ruled by Michael Bloomberg. Likewise, if I live in Cuba, I have agreed to be ruled over by Castro. What is more, if a wife lives in her house and her husband claims territorial monopoly over said house, she agrees to be beaten daily by him, if he so chooses.

If you are living there voluntarily i.e., not restrained from leaving that geographic area, than yes, you are agreeing to exist how the territorial monopolizer deems appropriate.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Mtn Dew — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:21:07 GMT

I signed an HOA agreement (or rather my wife did, at least I think so). However, there was no actual HOA in place, meaning there were no people on an HOA board. Since we moved in they have made drastic changes to the covenants. They're fining people for things such as having the wrong colored hose, or having their trash container out for more than 36 hours. They've also increased the HOA fee.

This doesn't feel terribly different than what the state does and I haven't seen anyone that has given me a satisfactory answer. If my kids inherit the house are they subject to the rules? How is this different than a state?

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Michelangelo — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:20:48 GMT

The crucial differences between a HOA and a State, aside from the latter being a monopoly of interpreting the law and the use of force, that the HOA legitimately gained its power from the consent of individuals who agreed to agree to the rules of HOA. More specifically, a HOA only covers the territory that was legitimately assigned to it. A state on the other hand imposes its rule over non-consenting individuals and usually over territory that hasn't even been homesteaded yet.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:20:09 GMT

Stranger:
The HOA is just a business like any other. It's not more powerful than a drug lord or an insurance company. It has no leverage on institutions larger than itself.

I get that, but if it was the largest institution claiming sovereignty over that geographic area?

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

DanielMuff — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:10:49 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Daniel Muffinburg:
How so?

Both claim a territorial monopoly. I couldn't stay in my house and not listen to the HOA.

So if I claim territorial monopoly over my ranch, I am a state?

Daniel Muffinburg:
How is voluntarily signing the HOA agreement/contract analogous to not signing the Constitution?

I doubt the OP was consulted when the bylaws of the HOA were created/ratified, just as each individual citizen isn't consulted when laws are passed. He had the choice of agreeing to obey the existing rules (signing the contract), or finding somewhere else to live, just like any nation (besides the ones that don't let you leave).

I doubt the OP has signed the Constitution, however, I am pretty sure that the OP signed the HOA agreement/contract. Furthermore, by your logic, states do not exist. Anyway, if I chose to live New York City, by your logic, I agree to be ruled by Michael Bloomberg. Likewise, if I live in Cuba, I have agreed to be ruled over by Castro. What is more, if a wife lives in her house and her husband claims territorial monopoly over said house, she agrees to be beaten daily by him, if he so chooses.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Stranger — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:10:03 GMT

Jackson LaRose:

Stranger:
Right, so the difference is not whether one is voluntary and the other not, it is that a HOA is not a monopolist of violence and justice in its territory.

I suppose both the homeowner and the HOA have the ability to appeal to the state to prevent one or the other from breaking laws, but if that higher authority was non-existent, than the HOA would be considered a monopolizer of justice (therefore violence), no?

The HOA is just a business like any other. It's not more powerful than a drug lord or an insurance company. It has no leverage on institutions larger than itself.

Re: Homeowner's association vs. the state

Jackson LaRose — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 21:18:12 GMT

Stranger:
Right, so the difference is not whether one is voluntary and the other not, it is that a HOA is not a monopolist of violence and justice in its territory.

I suppose both the homeowner and the HOA have the ability to appeal to the state to prevent one or the other from breaking laws, but if that higher authority was non-existent, than the HOA would be considered a monopolizer of justice (therefore violence), no?