Hacker News Reader

I think that there’s a question not being addressed here.

The things you’ve pointed out to be “taking away” your individual freedom are things that you have to put up with when you’re choosing to live in a society or a civilization, i.e. in togetherness with other people who do not have the same preferences as you. This scenario is inherently rooted in conflict, and everyone has to make compromises if everyone wants to live peacefully. If you don’t want to have to put up with other people then your only choice is really to just live alone in a forest where you can exercise your near-total individual freedom.

So since there seems to be a genuine binary between living a life of compromises in a society and living freely but like an hermit, aren’t we actually advocating for the dissolution of society when we’re talking about exercising our individual freedoms? Government and laws are, after all, just manifestations of how people in a (democratic) society want to run their society, but it’s not like we can draw a clear line on where government control and regulation should end, no? Because not even all democratic societies are the same.

This sounds like the same point that people bring up about privacy, i.e. "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid". While the point is valid the issues are more based in the principal of the matter.

But that’s the point—there will always be people who do want to live in a state where something is being done about CSAM down to their personal devices, while there will always be people who don’t. So which of the two groups are objectively right to have things done their way? It’s neither, and whoever wins on the policy level is a matter of politics, not of objective moral correctness.

So then since you can’t always have it your way when you’re living in a society, isn’t it that the only other option to have things your way is for you to live alone, all consequences entailing? Therefore, isn’t the argument for the full exercise of individual freedom an argument for the dissolution of society and ergo government? Because this topic seems to me about the full realization of individual freedoms and not making any compromises at all.

> "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be afraid". While the point is valid the issues are more based in the principal of the matter.

An important detail here. Technically you are kind of correct, but sadly there are plenty of examples of people who should have nothing to hide who have rightly had reasons to fear.

I.e. many people have reasons to fear without having anything to be ashamed of.

Kind of related is how much time is spent on private property in modern cities/suburbs. Old-style business districts would have a row of businesses on both sides of a street, with a public sidewalk and maybe a row of parking spots. New, car-friendly businesses have a huge parking lot that's private land (even though it's mostly treated as public land by the people using it). The public sidewalk is a hundred yards or so from the business, and rarely used.

HOAs are a similar situation: you might have a house attached to a private street, whereas in a non-HOA neighborhood it would be a public street.

In most cases the differences between public and private right-of-ways is subtle, but I suppose if a person wanted to make a point of defending their private property it might be more obvious. For instance, a business might be able to exclude a political protest from their property but not from a public sidewalk or street. (I'm not a lawyer and I don't know what the exact legal rights of people versus property owners in this situation is.) And I imagine it's easier for prejudiced people to make an ethnic minority feel like they're unwelcome if they're on private property.

I don't know how much of the world is like this, but something weird you see some places outside the U.S. is the idea that rural land is a sort of public right-of-way. It's not seen as weird to cross through someone's land while going on a walk or whatever. If you trample on their crops they might get mad at you I suppose, but sticking to the paths is seen as acceptable.

I’ve lived in or visited over 20 countries and one striking thing about the U.S. is how little we walk. In almost every city in the U.S. relatively few people are out and about outside. In some sense we have criminalized walking. It is so rare that in suburban white neighborhoods 4 black kids outside walking will be stopped by cops. We are not a free people.

https://www.illinoislawreview.org/print/vol-2017-no-3/the-cr...

This is the most remarkable thing about the US as an outsider.

Americans are completely dependent on their cars. Which means that children in the US have no freedom at all.

That's something that strikes me every time I come home from Europe and wake up in the (Pacific Northwest) suburbs. The streets are wide, the sidewalks are clean, there are trees all over the place, and not a soul in sight.

> Americans are completely dependent on their cars.

America is a big place with a lot of different situations.

> Which means that children in the US have no freedom at all.

This does not follow, and is not true. In America we tend to think of freedom as freedom from various kinds of persecution.

Consider the possibility that life in the U.S is abnormal by the standards of the rest of the world and that our view of what it means to be free is distorted.

Do people from elsewhere continue to want to immigrate to the US? Do you find yourself wanting to immigrate elsewhere?

Yes to both questions. Neither question is really relevant though. In the hierarchy of needs it’s easier to fill the lower level ones in the U.S. than in El Salvador. People move to the U.S. for ease of meeting needs, to experience the U.S., etc. This doesn’t mean than in comparison to Japan, UK, or Germany that life is freer here.

Eight percent of European migrants live in the U.S. and five percent in Kazakhstan. Is this evidence that Kazakhstan is comparable to the U.S?

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/european-immigrants-...

>or having a party past 10pm

Unfortunately, sometimes, freedom is a zero-sum game. I'd rather be free to sleep comfortably at night, than being "freee tooo parrtyyyy, broooo". And those who complain about this are usually the kind of people I wouldn't want near my house.

I love to have the freedom to live in a regulated neighborhood with like-minded people and those who don't like it are free as well to go buy a house literally anywhere else in the world.

There is a saying in French, "La liberté des uns s'arrête là où commencent celle des autres". I'm not sure if it's known in English, I never read it online that's for sure, so I just roughly translated word by word :

The freedom of someone ends where the freedom of others begins.

Basically saying that living in a stable society is like signing a contract to restrain your liberty of doing anything when it's proved harmful for the others.

A common English equivalent is "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins": https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/15/liberty-fist-nose/

Thanks, today I learnt the equivalent !

I've been saying that verbatim in English for years. I didn't know it originated as a French saying.

There really isn't a whole lot of agency in house buying or house building though. At least not at a mere mortals price point.

Real estate is costly, you have permitting, ordinances at city and county level, building codes... Doing anything nonstandard is hard and requires a lot of time, knowledge, and/or money

That really depends on the area. There are still rural counties where land is cheap and you can easily get a building permit as long as the plans are up to code.

Besides, it’s not even true. You’re allowed to have a party as late as you want. Just keep the music indoors

The risk with your argument is that it’s rife with counter examples. Local conditions are not homogeneous.

I bought a house this year. I bought it in a neighborhood without an HoA, I will admit. The houses on my street are older, smaller, ‘50s houses. I like my neighbors, we stay out of each other’s business. A lot of them like cars, and they work on them. I don’t care much, I do my own things. I had a dozen friends over to my place last week, they parked all along the street. My neighbors didn’t say anything.

Perhaps someone places in America are rules oriented, where rules are rigorously enforced. It certainly makes the news when someone can’t paint their house the color they want or a veteran can’t fly the flag. What I’m saying isn’t ground breaking, it won’t make the news, but there are places in America where you won’t be bothered for minor infractions. There are places where you do have freedom to do what you want and you can find these places.

>Most people in the USA, Canada, Australia and Europe don't realize how NOT free they are in terms of personal agency. It's actually mind-blowing.

What countires do you think are free? Like those in South (East) Asia, South America or Africa?

Yup. Poorer, but more free.

Freedom can mean stuff like being able to pollute and nobody having authority to stop you for example. Or the freedom to abuse another person as you see fit. That's the flipside to freedom, it enables assholes.

It would be so freeing to live in a world of no rules. But in practice that is just barbarism. It's a terrible way to run a society.

In some of those places, there is less government interference with everyday life.

Street vendors don't need permits, or if they do, it's only in the books but not in practice.

You might not have to have a health department license to sell food for example.

Buying beer or alcohol may not have strict age requirements. Parents have more dominion over their kids and the state interferes with that less.

There are of course disadvantages such as more abuse because, you know, you can't have nice things because the few spoil it for the majority of people who behave.

No. If you can afford a house in the US you can for sure afford to live in any of these places and enjoy whatever good they offer. The opposite is much more complicated. This makes you more free than people over there.

Also, in general terms, more money == more freedom.

Brilliant, the HOAs in America are one of the most insane forms of government

To me, the way local police works factors into this too. And not just the highly newsworthy brutality. But simple stuff. Like driving an old beater car in a wealthy neighborhood. Your chances of getting pulled over are high. And when you are, you get questions about where you are coming from, going to, etc, as if there's a wrong answer for that. Or some reason you would have to answer.

Having lived in an area without a HOA, I've witnessed people fly confederate flags, park RVs, boats, broken down trucks, etc. all over their driveways, yards, and the streets, etc. etc... I became a believer in HOAs. At this point in my life, I'd rather live in a HOAed neighborhood than not. This is my opinion I've formed from my personal experiences so not all may agree.

Indeed some HOAs are ridiculously overbearing and limit things you'd think aren't even possible to limit. There's a nice middle ground somewhere but not all HOAs are there.

I don't understand your complaint. They park RVs and boats in their driveways and yards? Who cares? It's their property. Why do you care what they put on their own property? Who even has time to worry about their neighbor's lawn?

They park on the streets? Unless you live on a private road, that's a municipal matter. Parking rules should be up to the city, not your HOA.

Honestly it sounds like you are exactly who the top-level comment was talking about. You care more about restricting your neighbors than your own personal freedoms.

>They park RVs and boats in their driveways and yards? Who cares?

Indeed, I don't want broken down RVs and trucks that leak oils and fluids all over the place on the street, or on their lawn where it eventually ends up in the water table.

It also makes the area look like an industrial area, not residential.

>Why do you care what they put on their own property?

I don't want symbols of oppression and racism flying around anywhere, and especially not in my neighborhood.

>They park on the streets? Unless you live on a private road, that's a municipal matter.

HOAs can also enforce this it's not simply a municipal matter. It makes the roads cluttered and more dangerous for pedestrians, bikes, etc.

>Honestly it sounds like you are exactly who the top-level comment was talking about. You care more about restricting your neighbors than your own personal freedoms.

Not at all, I just want some simple standards so where we live doesn't look like the city dump.

Those things tend to run down the value of the entire neighborhood.

And here we are, at the fundamental reason people want to control their neighbors.

I never understood this. I bought my house to live in it, for decades, why would I care about value not rising as fast as it could?

The thing is, HOAs tend to have little to no power over people like that. They simply don't give a shit. They will ignore every letter the HOA sends and are will refuse to comply with court orders. And those court orders take years to and a not inconsiderable amount of expense to obtain in the first place.

IMHO, the only reason to have a HOA is to pool money for common area maintenance. Anything beyond that tends to do more harm than good.

>The thing is, HOAs tend to have little to no power over people like that.

Not entirely true as you outlined, since HOAs can put liens on your property and they can end up foreclosing. The HOA will absolutely get it's money and enforcement, either through a foreclosure or court order.

Back when I lived in a townhome the unit attached to mine had a very nice single mother and her son living there. Sadly, they moved out and some house flippers moved in, shortly afterward the housing market imploded. They started letting their friends crash at the house and wreck it, eventually it go so bad one of the windows fell out (dormer window mounted in a wooden frame left open to the elements). Right into the front yard.

Anyway I tried going to the HOA about it, and they explained that a lien would be a waste of time. Even in an egregious case like this nobody wants to take responsibility for a property like that. It's a lot of work to get the lien, foreclosure from a HOA basically never happens, and even then all they inherit is a huge problem that nobody wants to deal with. So instead I get to sell my house attached to one that literally has siding falling off, missing shingles, and a goddamn window in the front yard.

This is the same HOA that wrote me up for refilling the windshield washing fluid in my car parked in front of my house and hassled my neighbour because he replaced the shitty wooden windows with vinyl that you couldn't even tell the difference without tapping on them.

Basically, they only have power over people who are already trying to be good neighbours.

As an epilogue, the bank eventually foreclosed on the property and presumably sold it as distressed. A coworker of mine toured it, but apparently the basement was black mold city. A lien on the property wouldn't have helped the situation.

It's just the worst when people park their broken trucks on their driveways, glad you made it to somewhere where we can fine them for it.

>It's just the worst when people park their broken trucks on their driveways

It's not the worst, but I don't want my neighbor to look like the city dump.

>glad you made it to somewhere where we can fine them for it.

You agree to the HOA when you purchase your home. Don't like it? Don't move there.

You're complaining as if you moved to Germany and you're upset you can't fly the Nazi flag. Isn't that just the worst? Not at all, you made a conscious effort and agreed to the laws when you to move to Germany. You should follow them. Same logic applies here.

There has to be a middle ground between you can have your car up on blocks till the weeds cover it, a storm fence in disrepair, loud barking dogs and the other where the kinds of plants you put in your garden are up for discussion, nevermind hanging a tire from a branch as a swing and needing permission to change the shade of the color of the house.

One thing I've realized about the constitution and the bill of rights is that they are a mechanism that allows the good guys to spot the bad guys quickly. Without constitution, the bad guys could gaslight everyone and chew their freedoms in the meantime. They would debate that chewing that or this wooden pillar is ok because it doesn't really support the construction and so on. But if theres a codex that starts with "rule 1. chewing wood in the house is prohibited" then the good guys will instantly agree that those guys chewing wood must be bad, no debates necessary. It's a sort of distributed consensus for large societies. The good guys may be lazy and choose to not enforce the rules, but that's not the Constitution's problem.

> Without constitution, the bad guys could gaslight everyone and chew their freedoms in the meantime.

The problem is that this in fact exactly what happened in this country over last few decades, and the parchment has been only mildly helpful in slowing that down.

I think a lot of it comes from the increased insecurity, both socially and economically, of the age. It seems like the general sentiment of the future isn't one of hope or optimism, but anxiety and pessimism instead.

It makes sense that in a period of increased insecurity the incentives to either hold onto that security or fight for increased security holds enough value that people are willing to give up freedoms whose importance has almost become esoteric among those who have never experienced what they are meant to protect us from.

This is probably why there has been little concern expressed about the slow erosion of freedoms in western societies, or the fact that many actively advocate for them to be eroded for short term securities.

Your examples are quite strange.

I’m not sure about the permit, but for the most part, permits are needed in many non western countries as well. In fact, in most of those countries the laws are even more egregious. The difference is that they usually have corrupt or inadequate enforcement mechanisms which allow you to do things illegally or by paying a bribe.

The neighborhood group stuff is ridiculous but it’s something people have voluntarily agreed to as a group. And the individuals have voluntarily chosen to live there.

You are absolutely allowed to have parties past 10pm. What you’re not allowed to do is play loud music that infringes on the persons of others after a certain time.

That’s one of the reasons I’m staying in my poor corrupted country. I feel free, and I’m afraid to lose that feeling moving to rich lawful country.

I guess it’s good to have a choice.

It's also much less free if you consider the income to living expense ratio being the worst it's been in decades. People have to work more for less. Housing and food are less affordable than they've ever been in decades. We're chained to our crappy jobs to not starve in the streets.

Really starve in the streets? Even America gives free food to poor people via food stamps, doesn't it?

If you're an adult without dependents then food stamps last for three months. After that you're required to work or be in a work training program for 20 hours a week. There are some areas that provide some small concessions to this three month limit but most places do not. You also don't qualify if you're an unauthorized immigrants, or a certain type of lawfully present immigrant. Also don't qualify if you're on strike but their unions should be covering them if it's that drastic.

It is literally: work in our system or starve. There is no free food unless you're doing something 20 hours a week that has government oversight (i.e. tax forms).

In fact, I don’t think that a single person in US has died in last decade because he was too poor to afford food.

It's really sad to see someone assuming that just because you don't literally die of starvation that limited access to food doesn't have extremely profound, inter-generational effects to millions of people in this country. People in 2021 deserve to have access to food regardless of circumstances.

Starvation by definition doesn't mean death by lack of food. It means you are deficient and unhealthy because of it. Which absolutely happens a LOT in this country.

Probably true, however it is possible that in a system where money is everything, not being able to afford food, although it's being given for free anyway, cold be enough to turn someone suicidal.