We really need a lawyer in here, just in case, but I think the basic principle is pretty clear: private citizens aren’t governments. If there are five lots on my cul-de-sac, four of us can’t get together and say, “We’re the HOA for this street, and we can pass covenants that apply to all five houses here.”
Even if there are no specific covenants enacted (e.g. no junkers on the lawn), the legal document that gives the HOA authority to pass such covenants is itself a covenant, and unless you - or a previous owner of the property, such as the developer - agreed to that covenant, then they can’t touch you. So if you’re genuinely pre-habitating, you can tell them to go jump.
(C’mon: this board is full of lawyers these days. One of you, jump in and ascertain whether or not I’m on target about this.)
I am definitely not a libertarian, but I’ve debated with them enough to probably give a good first approximation of what they believe.
Libertarians are big on property rights and private contracts, and have no problem whatever with voluntary forms of self-government. My guess is that most libertarians wouldn’t want to live in a neighborhood governed by covenants, but they’d have no argument with the principle of them.
If I own some land, in their view, I can make an agreement with myself that a bunch of covenants apply to this land. Nothing wrong with that.
Now, here’s where I’m stepping on thin ice: it’s always been the right, in the Anglo-American tradition, for one landowner to enact restrictions on his land that apply to succeeding landowners, in perpetuity.
For instance, suppose I own a long, thin parcel of land, and only one short edge at the front is on a road. If I want to divide it into two lots and sell the rear lot, I won’t be able to ask much for it unless I provide a guarantee of access to the road, for the buyers and their successors. So I’d grant them an easement on the front lot than I’m keeping, allowing them to go back and forth across my lot to get to theirs. That easement would allow for access across my lot, in perpetuity, restricting the use of all of my successors in ownership.
AFAIK, libertarians have no problem with the right of one landowner to place restrictions on land that limit what succeeding owners can do with it. But I don’t know for sure; you’d have to ask some of them.
Succeeding buyers of the land (as I understand it) are responsible for making sure they know what restrictions are on the land; that’s one of the reasons title searches are done. But if you buy a piece of land, you’re agreeing to accept all such restrictions that previous landowners have placed on it that are in the county land records. Libertarians think it’s OK to contract to pretty much anything you want, so that step should be fine with them.
If voluntarily buying a lot means you’re voluntarily opting in to a local self-governing association, that sounds like exactly the sort of way libertarians think all government should work - by choice.
Lib? erislover? Did I get this right, or do you want to critique me?
