Suppose it's the 1960s, and you want to buy something to eat. Your choices are "Go home and make food." and "Go to a smoke-filled restaurant and buy food." The choice of "Go to a non-smoking restaurant and buy food." doesn't exist in that environment, because there are no such restaurants. It would be silly to state that this is a free choice indicating a preference for smoke-filled restaurants, because there is no alternative that maintains the option of going to a restaurant.

Depending on the location, the only houses available may have mandatory HOA membership. If the choice is "Join an HOA or add 30 minutes to your commute.", that isn't a free choice. If the choice is "Join an HOA or find a job in another city.", that isn't a free choice. Depending on the area, mandated HOA membership may be the de facto law of the land, even if it isn't the de jure law of the land.

Choices must always be compared to their alternative, and using a non-existent Hobbesian state of nature as the alternative is overly simplistic.

While I agree with everything you said, it's a bit ironic that the comparison drawn is between an HOA putting restrictions on what you can do in service of collective benefit as something negative, to before such restrictions was put on restaurants in service of allowing people to get food without second hand smoke.

I understand people will have different preferences, but someone making tar or smoking fish on their lawn 24/7 affects all neighbors, while an HOA rule restricting that only affects that one person, and everyone else can enjoy their yards unsmoked.

Good point, and I realized that partway through writing it, but couldn't find a good way to tie it all together. It's more that I get frustrated at "freely entered agreement" being used as justification in any argument, as it's usually a wild stretch of the word "freely".

There are some issues with the word "freely" because in many cities all new construction is HOA-encumbered. So you have the choice between new construction with an HOA and old (quite possibly run-down) and no HOA. That's not a free choice, it's Hobson's choice.

It's about as free as entering into an arbitration agreement. You freely decide to get yourself a cellphone or credit card, and there aren't any on the market where you don't have to sign your rights away. It approaches shrinkwrap license territory.

The HOA is used by the developer to retain control while they sell off all the new construction. They can milk it for fees because they have controlling interest

> many cities all new construction is HOA-encumbered

“Many cities” and “all new construction” are going to need serious citations. If your lens is through big home builders, then it looks like that but it’s completely false.

A problem I have with HOAs is that towns and Counties will often invest significantly in new construction areas that have HOAs from initial development. The government builds new parks, schools, etc directly adjacent to HOA neighborhoods. If you want close access to these public amenities you need to buy in the HOA.

So, in a way HOAs are sort of endorsed/franchised by the towns and counties which create them.

Except for the part where nearly 70% of new development is within HOA-controlled subdivisions.

Sure, you can avoid them if you want to live in a rural area or buy an older home. But almost anything in the suburbs built since the 1970s is in an HOA.

HOAs can be good. But many of them are run by narrow minded petty despots. Or worse, outsourced to a corporate management company.

Unsure is the emphasis on "freely" is sarcasm but people absolutely don't have freedom when it comes to accepting HOA terms. If the house you can get has a shitty HOA then you're stuck with it. It took us dozens of offers (all well over asking price) before we finally had one that got through and there's no way we'd be able to be picky about HOA.

You are conflating "free choice" with options that perfectly align with your preferences. I made no such claim. You are absolutely free to not buy a house.

And, I promise you, you can find a home to purchase that is non-HOA. It just might not be in the area that meets all of your other preferences. But this is your choice. This is not evidence of a lack of freedom. You are not coerced into buying any house.

> people absolutely don't have freedom when it comes to accepting HOA terms

Of course they do.

If you don't like income tax, move to WA. If you don't like sales tax, move to OR. (If you like them both, move to CA!). These choices have inherent compromises.

If you don't like HOAs, choose a different neighborhood. Again, inherent compromises.

But freedom of movement is guaranteed to all (non-incarcerated) US citizens. If you choose not to exercise it, that's 100% on you and your choices of prioritization.

Freedom of movement is only one kind of freedom. Freedom of growing your own carrot on your own property is another.

Just don't say that you Americans are more free than other nations. Because you are simply not.

You are responding to the wrong person.

And also mischaracterizing the state of things. Some HOAs say you must have a lawn, not a garden, in your front (or street-facing) yard. They do not prohibit you from growing carrots in your back yard. They do prohibit other things.

I'm not a fan of HOAs. But HOAs are voluntary communities. You sign the contract, you are bound by the terms. That's true in your country too.

And as for American Freedom.. It's just part of the exceptionalism mythology. Just like the One True God, or the World Champions of Sport, or what have you. Intelligent people have a more nuanced view. Unintelligent people are more common, alas. And so the world turns...

And what was the point of coming into this thread and pushing that attack specifically at the US? The world is overflowing with highly regulated economies, including all across affluent Europe. The article didn't claim the US was more free than xyz, people in this thread weren't claiming that either. You set up a straw issue so you could knock it down.

You're relatively new here, so here's a tip: what you're doing (trying to incite, posting flamebait) is specifically against HN's guidelines.

1. It's not me, who invented and repeat "America - land of freedom".

2. It's not me, who is constantly telling that I live in the country with most freedoms (I don't say you do, I'm just long enough in the internet to know how it is _in general_).

3. It wasn't any flamebait. I just laughed at this ridiculous thing. It's you all who felt offended and are bashing me because (of cource, as always) _I don't understand it_.

4. If you want - I can do you a favour and stop posting my comments here. It's still worthless tho

> Just don't say that you Americans are more free than other nations. Because you are simply not.

But your example is shit, because Americans are free to move a place without an HOA (I’m in one).

Another wrinkle is that many more areas are technically cities; which usually comes with rules like no bees, chickens, goats, etc. Yet just a block or two away and one could live in a township which rarely has such rules.

Generally though I think your point stands, the USA is big enough and varied enough one can usually chose a nearby location which permits hobby farming.

Simple question - if you want to leave HOA and after that grow vegetables, can you do that? If not - it has nothing to do with freedom. It's only propaganda of having the most freedom when citizens of a lot of "non free" countries (by American standards) will laugh at your absurds.

I'm not saying USA is not free country - of course you are free. I'm only saying that telling that you have the most freedom is at least funny.

> if you want to leave HOA and after that grow vegetables, can you do that?

No. The contract you freely enter into governs this. This is sort of like asking, "Can I decide not to pay you, per our contract, after you've rendered services?" No. And that restraint doesn't make me "less free". Not by any common understanding of the word "freedom", anyway.

The U.S. has some 300+ million citizens. I'm not sure we can make monolithic statements about how each of us views the relative freedom of our country. Personally, I wouldn't know how to make such a comparison. However, I strongly suspect we're "more free" than, say, a person living in Iran.

"most freedom" is a thing you brought up yourself to start a silly flamewar. This stuff is in the guidelines:

Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

Depends. The HOA is a contract with your neighbors, so if they agree the HOA can be ended. See a lawyer, state law and your contract for details that very much matter and are different fof each.

A few houses ago my hoa could be ended automatically after 2018. I moved out just after then, but the only limit I remember was no more than five cows were allowed, I didn't find that a problem.

I'm going to assume you aren't American, because it sounds like you're working off of some fairly skewed views of the country. The vast majority of gun owners are pretty much normal people who don't want to shoot anyone for any reason. The vast majority of HoA's are not overbearing or crazy. The Venn diagram of "crazy gun owners willing to shoot anyone on their property" and "over the top HoA's" is going to show essentially no overlap. The former almost always live in rural areas and the latter are usually found in upper class suburban neighborhoods.

> it seems that those homeovner associations are on level of North Korea and Soviet Russia

The HOA is an agreement that is designed to keep a neighborhood from going downhill by residents parking on the street, or turning their yard into a parking lot, or from painting their house some atrocious color. As normally designed, they are little more than a codification of "don't be a jerk."

The problem comes when people get involved. The sort of person who really, really wants to be on the governing board of the HOA is exactly the sort of person who should NEVER be allowed anywhere near a lever of power. These are the sorts of people who are out on the street with calipers to see if your lawn is over the prescribed length, or measuring the height of your mailbox. They take great joy in meddling with other people's lives, and they hide behind the veil of "I'm just enforcing the HOA contract!" to be douchemobiles.

Whether this is an improvement over "either get your car out of your yard or I'm gonna punch you in the nose," is an exercise left to the reader.

I can assure you that places without HOA generally don't have all that many atrocious houses. Nor do they have whole yards turned into park lots.

What's wrong with parking your own car on your own property?

Because one car becomes one car and a boat, and then it becomes one car, a boat, and a project car that is always being worked on. Then the brother-in-law moves it for a while, and it becomes two cars, a boat, a project car, and an assortment of quad-bikes.

Does it always go this way? No. Does it go this way often enough that people worry about it? Yes.

I received two letters recently from my HOA:

1. Trash can was outside more than 24 hours after trash pickup. Do it again and you’ll be fined.

2. Outdoor Christmas lights in a tree more than 30 days after Christmas. Remove within 10 days or get fined. Those lights have been there for years from the previous owners. I never turn them on and just ignore them. Well, they are gone now.

You shouldn't take reddit creative writing seriously.