"Land of the free where you can shoot a person that enters your garden but you can't dry out your clothes there because it's unsightly."

Freedom encompasses freedom of association, where you may voluntarily agree to additional restrictions as part of such an association. The definition of freedom you seem to be using is incoherent. You can't have both the "freedom" to enter into a voluntary contract and also the "freedom" to violate the contract at will. The two are contradictory.

As a rebuttal, you are never really free from getting shot because applying your "freedom of association" to that topic results in so much controversy as to be practically unfeasible.

Back to the topic at hand, this is pitting the aestethic feelings of some versus the right of others to be thrifty and efficient (and green, as line-drying is definitely more environment-friendly than using a machine which pulls 2-5KW of power).

> the right of others to be thrifty and efficient

It would be much more thrifty and efficient if I could walk around naked and shit and piss where ever I want, because then I wouldn't have to buy clothes, clean them, or waste money on flushing a toilet.

Yes, you are free to choose the school district for your children. It just so happens that many of the better ones are HOA-encumbered, and it's HOAs where you find these overbearing rules that supposedly help protect the value of your home, or something.

Freedom to go somewhere else is the most basic freedom there is. Saying you are free just because you have that basic freedom is a bit much.

Are you free to not enter neighbourhood associations so you can put your laundry outside?

I honestly don't understand how all that freedom neighbourhood association restrictions work.

it's actually really simple. some (but not all) neighborhoods have neighborhood associations that have bylaws. if you don't like the bylaws, you go live in a different neighborhood.

pretty much everyone who lives in these kinds of places has at least one rule on the books that they think is dumb, but at the end of the day most people do actually want their neighbors to cut their lawns and stuff like that, so they choose to live somewhere that has at least some of these restrictions.

> if you don't like the bylaws, you go live in a different neighborhood.

What if I own land there because I bought it or inherited it? At which point do I freely enter those free neighbourhood associacions and agreements? Are they attached to the land? How exactly are they free if they are bundled? Is it like "freely" agreeing to see ads because if I don't agree I'll be cut out from the service?

In my country interaction between people that live side by side is regulated by actual law and since it's universal it's limited. Like no emission of unbearable smells or actual poison and no constant noise. It's nobody's business if his neighbour cuts grass provided he doesn't do that all the time with especially loud lawnmower.

If you own property that's not part of a HOA and your neighbors decide to form one, you can just choose not to join it if you don't want to. If you're buying land, you should find out whether or not it is part of a HOA before buying it, and if it is part of one make sure that it has rules which are acceptable to you.

I've never understood this. I live in an older neighborhood which was built long before HOAs existed. Actually I have never lived in a neighborhood with an HOA, and I'm over 60. I've never seen any of the evils that those folks worry about.

They work in the same way as restaurant dress codes

>Neighborhood association bylaws...

HOAs and the people who subject themselves to them are a self selecting group who want that kind of stuff. In some wealthy suburbs the town government functions basically like a HOA trying to maintain property values by keeping the "wrong" people out and keeping the "wrong" kind of development from happening. However, local governments mostly don't concern themselves with this level of micromanagement, it's the exception not the rule.

Caring about "unsightly" things is universal to rich busybodies worldwide. It's not about freedom, it's about doing things that inconvenience poor people so they don't move to your neighborhood.

For every horror story about an American HOA there's an equivilent

>Land of the free where you can shoot a person that enters your garden

Outside some very specific circumstances shooting someone who is on your property is likely to put you behind bars regardless of what state you do it in.

> Caring about "unsightly" things is universal to rich busybodies worldwide. It's not about freedom, it's about doing things that inconvenience poor people so they don't move to your neighborhood.

it might have that effect in some cases, but I don't necessarily think that's the intent. people put a lot of effort into making their home and yard look nice and they want to live with other people who also care. I live in a quiet lower-middle class neighborhood and people will be all over me if I don't cut my lawn for a few weeks; it's not just a "rich people" thing. I don't call them busybodies though. I get to enjoy the product of their work every time I sit on my porch, so I don't mind doing my part to make the street pleasant.

Castle doctrine is scary. Someone has to be threatening you, but it definitely is a thing. See: Trayvon Martin.

I like my HOA and it isn’t to keep poor people out. No more than high rent in SF is to keep poor people out. Market forces do that. I don’t think HOA is some evil force. I am biased of course, I live in a neighborhood with an HOA. Towns have building codes and appearance codes as well, sometimes for practical reasons, often purely for aesthetics.

>Castle doctrine is scary

Not having castle doctrine is equally if not more scary. The idea that I could wind up in jail because I didn't make enough effort to retreat within my own home is not exactly comforting. The idea that one has to retreat within their own home or personal vehicle is just kind of absurd to begin with. I can through my own actions greatly reduce the (already minuscule) chances of getting shot by someone else in their home. I cannot through my own actions effect (or at least not to nearly the same extent) the chances of having my life threatened by someone else.

I don't live somewhere "nice" by HN standards (I'm perfectly fine with where I live). While my house will probably never be robbed it will also probably never catch on fire yet I have smoke alarms and a couple fire extinguishers.

>and appearance codes as well, sometimes for practical reasons, often purely for aesthetics.

This is the HOA-esque behavior I'm talking about. Yes, it's common in suburbs of SF, on Long island, etc. It's not the norm.

I'm not sure I'd say HOAs are common in the suburbs of SF. Maybe the exurbs. HOAs are more common in what you might call sprawl, newer neighborhoods, and most suburbs of SF are old enough that they don't have HOAs. Unless you're talking, like, out in Danville or something.

I agree in general about castle doctrine, BTW. The laws aren’t always clear in their scope around when, where, and how you can defend yourself and if they are even constitutional. Inside of your home seems like an obvious place you don’t have to retreat.

Even California has castle doctrine laws.

Many are unaware that in the U.S. the police is not responsible for an individual's personal safety; see Warren v. District of Columbia, Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, etc.

> The idea that one has to retreat within their own home or personal vehicle is just kind of absurd to begin with.

If my home had two pairs of doors I'll be rushing through second one the moment I thought someone would try to brake in through the first one. Not because I had to, just because defending your stuff with your life and health is a bad choice. You have one life and body that will not be the same again after it's shot or stabbed or beaten, but you can always earn more money and get more stuff.

>You can always earn more money and get more stuff.

I can't just buy another wife

I thought it goes without saying that I'd grab her along the way. Unless she can move only in a wheelchair then I'd have to reconsider my position but we are getting into very specific scenarios.

I take it you're not a parent.

No. I'm not, but if I was, I'd grab my kid(s) on my way out. That's still prefferable to keeping them in wooden house of flying bullets.

Trayvon Martin was an application of "Stand Your Ground", not the Castle Doctrine.

> Castle doctrine is scary.

only if you spend a lot of time in other people's houses uninvited.

It depends on the state. Castle doctrine laws and stand your ground laws often get intertwined in some states. It isn’t a properly simple term to define.

Or collect rain water in your own yard.

Or walk by police while black...

There are so many similar examples, that I wonder what this "free" part refers to anymore...

(Of course back in the day, even back in 1920 or so, Europe was a lot more regulated than the US).

Or disconnect your house from the grid (see: Florida)

Is that true? Snopes makes me think it is just a rumor.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/is-it-illegal-florida-powe...

Wait, you cannot collect rain water?

AFAICT the only place where it's restricted (it used to be illegal, now you can collect 110 gallons) is Colorado.

Depends on your state:

http://www.ncsl.org/research/environment-and-natural-resourc...

Where bullets are dirt cheap and homelessness is a crime, but it's illegal to live in an affordable tiny home, and if you're a certain skin color it's rote for politicians to make it impossible to you to vote...

There's an updated "American Pie" song in here somewhere...