I'm surprised that I haven't had to deal with this in political discussions more often. One time, when mentioning my HOA I heard, "some libertarian you are, they won't even let your change the color of your mailbox." While this is true, I agreed to it before buying the house. The more difficult question is, how can a majority of homeowners force me to pay more HOA dues simply by a vote? Isn't this just a small scale state? Even more difficult than that question is: if signing an HOA agreement indicates my consent, then buying a house within a state's authority should indicate my consent to be ruled by that state? I knew something was amiss with this argument, but it took me several months to formalize it. The answer came from Albert J. Nock, and I'd like to share it here.
I'll just get straight to the point, "[the state] did not originate in the common understanding and agreement of society; it originated in conquest and confiscation" (Our Enemy the State, by Albert J. Nock, Ch.2). Ownership is derived from the principle of homesteading. Subsequent ownership comes via trade or gifting. The property on which an HOA is established was probably sold by a farmer to a housing development company (HDC). The farmer or his family acquired this property via homesteading. The HDC, by its observations of market activity, wagered that it would be more profitable and attract more clients if they put restrictions on the property. A potential owner like myself has no claim to this property and so cannot make any legal claims about what can or cannot be in the contract. I am free to negotiate, and when the contract is presented I am free to reject or consent to the stipulations of property ownership.
Aside: an interesting agreement I made at time of purchase is that I have no claim on the minerals/metals found on my property. When I asked why, I was told that mining these minerals would ruin the aesthetics of the HOA. That made sense to me and readily agreed.
Notice that the HDC is risking its capital. If the HOA charges too much or is too restrictive then property values will be lower than what the HDC paid for them and will go out of business. If the HDC imposes minor restrictions that everyone agrees to and ultimately beautifies and aesthetically unifies the area, then property values will be higher with the HOA than without it.
What happens when the HDC leaves and homeowners rule the HOA? Well, first and foremost, I've consented to buy property on land that I previously had no claim to and so all contracts made thereafter are binding. Second, the HOA is small, a few hundred families. We all live in the community, we all pay the exact same HOA dues, and all of our home values are at risk when we increase or decrease services provided by the HOA. No member is charged more than any other and so a majority can't rule over a minority without paying the same price. The size is also important because we know the HOA board members and the neighbors that vote. We have much more power to negotiate and convince a neighbor to give up an economically-damaging pipe dream than we do a politician 2000 miles away.
An HOA is an example of government, not the state. It's not perfect... wait, yes it is. It's not utopian; it's an example of how community ought to be established. It's how homesteading, contract, and property rights -- the peaceful and voluntary means of human interaction -- can promote peace, flourishing, and happiness. It may not be for everyone, but it is a perfect solution to deal with the limitation of human nature and limitation of nature itself -- of scarcity.
What about the second part of my question, doesn't my purchase of the home indicate my consent to the state in that geographical territory? No. The state did not homestead the property, the state did not put up its capital to purchase the property, and thus has no claim to the property period. Whatever ownership the state claims is based on it's ability to conquer, not to interact peacefully.
What about the Louisiana Purchase or Alaska, Eric? These were purchases made by the U.S. Government by putting up citizen's capital on their behalf. Hence, homesteading (in these examples) is merely a citizen reclaiming what is rightfully his.
ReplyDeleteFurther, in the absence of a state, how does one take ownership of property? You may say by private party contract; however, those sales/exchanges can only be traced back so far as at some point land had to have been taken by force from another.
Good post though!
Those are good questions, Matt. And thanks for reading :)
ReplyDeleteThe Louisiana purchase is easy, the state can't purchase things on behalf of anyone because the revenue is gotten through illegitimate means. If you disagree on this then there's more theory than I want to cover in this comment.
I think I can easily disprove the need for a state to establish property rights. If someone barges into your home do you need to get the state to protect you? No, you have every right to defend your house in self defense. The house that you built or paid for is evidence of your homesteading. Private courts, title companies, private law enforcement is simply an organized extension of a neighborhood watch.
Finally, why was force necessary at some time? Maybe I missed something. There are still areas on this earth claimed by no one (except government) and definitely not homesteaded by anyone. Some people used force to take land from the native americans, but that wasn't true of every settler.