> Let’s talk. What do you think about manufactured consent and the Overton window? What are the topics you wish were within the boundaries of acceptable discourse? Comments are open
• Make homeowner associations illegal.
As a corporation, H.O.A.s are a defective product.
They fail to perform the most basic function of a corporation, which is to shield the investors from the debts and liabilities of the corporation. Hence, H.O.A.s are the greatest fraud perpetrated upon consumers of housing.
If that is too radical for you, here's another one:
• Prohibit contracts that require mandatory membership in an H.O.A. corporation as a condition of home ownership.
How much do you want to bet that most of the same people who will scream "No government interference with private contracts" are the same people who support so-called "right to work" laws which
• Prohibit contracts that require mandatory membership in a labor union as a condition of employment ?
• Neuter the authority and power of homeowner associations , limiting them to that which is only necessary to manage and maintain their → common ← property.
• Make it illegal for an H.O.A. corporation to make and enforce rules on a homeowner's own → private ← property.
And before anyone objects to the lack of enforcement of residential covenants as a result of the previous proposals, please note that
• "Restrictive covenants are one thing, and H.O.A.s are another. In order to enforce a neighborhood's restrictive covenants, it is not necessary to have an H.O.A."
My daughters friend lives in a very rural area where permitting and zoning if it exists it is only in some city worker’s imagination. Her neighbor built his own road up a hillside behind her house. She has mudslides into her property now. She’s afraid one may take her house. Of course she doesn’t think how one might take her life one night while she’s asleep. (Our imaginations are limited.)
Some ideas are not as good as they sound.
Rules are what we require to live together without causing each other’s deaths.
People think all that sounds crazy and radical, but forget that that the truly radical stuff happened in the 1910s and 20s. That's when we threw out the previous system entirely for the modern administrative state. And it's worth noting the earlier system gave us every "historic" place today that we love, privately run and successful mass transit, very affordable cities, etc. Of course there were abuses, too, because that's true in every system. And the systems we've had since have given us drive-only communities, unsustainable suburban development, social dysfunction, and much more. End of rant!
Abolish zoning. Break up cities over 50k people. Privatize all local government services to make them competitive. Abolish DOTs and privatize infrastructure. How are those Overton windows?
Another useful paradigm is Timur Kuram’s preference falsification. He was mostly writing about political revolutions in dictatorial regimes and how there needs to be a critical mass built up before the damn breaks, but his meta observation that things happen slowly and then they happen quickly has some bearing on Overton window shifts.
Specific to zoning, there are def dozens of us ready to overturn Euclid :) Lot of preliminary steps on the legal side, though. More broadly, zoning has such good marketing that most folks just assume it does what it says on the tin and protects elementary school students from glue factories or something. Most people conflate zoning with all land use, too, so talking abolition makes them think you’re pitching ancapistan or some such nonsense.
I give more context on Substack articles than I do X, but two reasons I like to say "abolish zoning":
1. It's an unnecessary evil. I really do want to abolish it. There are many other building & development rules that can keep the kids safe from the glue factories. ;)
2. It turns heads and implies a value judgment. Similar to "legalize housing."
> Another useful paradigm is Timur Kuram’s preference falsification.
Also preference cascade. See "Patriotism and Preferences" by Glenn Reynolds ( instapundit.substack.com ), TCS Daily, March 13 2002.
> This illustrates, in a mild way, the reason why totalitarian regimes collapse so suddenly. Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don't realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it - but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way.
> This works until something breaks the spell, and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers - or even to the citizens themselves. Claims after the fact that many people who seemed like loyal apparatchiks really loathed the regime are often self-serving, of course. But they're also often true: Even if one loathes the regime, few people have the force of will to stage one-man revolutions, and when preferences are sufficiently falsified, each dissident may feel that he or she is the only one, or at least part of a minority too small to make any difference.
> Let’s talk. What do you think about manufactured consent and the Overton window? What are the topics you wish were within the boundaries of acceptable discourse? Comments are open
• Make homeowner associations illegal.
As a corporation, H.O.A.s are a defective product.
They fail to perform the most basic function of a corporation, which is to shield the investors from the debts and liabilities of the corporation. Hence, H.O.A.s are the greatest fraud perpetrated upon consumers of housing.
See "As a Corporation, an H.O.A. is a Defective Product" (August 23, 2023) @ https://homeowners.substack.com/p/as-a-corporation-an-hoa-is-a-defective
If that is too radical for you, here's another one:
• Prohibit contracts that require mandatory membership in an H.O.A. corporation as a condition of home ownership.
How much do you want to bet that most of the same people who will scream "No government interference with private contracts" are the same people who support so-called "right to work" laws which
• Prohibit contracts that require mandatory membership in a labor union as a condition of employment ?
See "Right to Own" (July 16, 2023) @ https://homeowners.substack.com/p/right-to-own
If that is still too radical for you, how about
• Neuter the authority and power of homeowner associations , limiting them to that which is only necessary to manage and maintain their → common ← property.
• Make it illegal for an H.O.A. corporation to make and enforce rules on a homeowner's own → private ← property.
See "A Man's Home Is His Castle Colorado Homeowners Protection Act" (July 25, 2023) @ https://homeowners.substack.com/p/a-mans-home-is-his-castle-colorado
And before anyone objects to the lack of enforcement of residential covenants as a result of the previous proposals, please note that
• "Restrictive covenants are one thing, and H.O.A.s are another. In order to enforce a neighborhood's restrictive covenants, it is not necessary to have an H.O.A."
See "Who Enforces the Rules" (May 31, 2023) @ https://homeowners.substack.com/p/who-enforces-the-rules
My daughters friend lives in a very rural area where permitting and zoning if it exists it is only in some city worker’s imagination. Her neighbor built his own road up a hillside behind her house. She has mudslides into her property now. She’s afraid one may take her house. Of course she doesn’t think how one might take her life one night while she’s asleep. (Our imaginations are limited.)
Some ideas are not as good as they sound.
Rules are what we require to live together without causing each other’s deaths.
Liberty doesn't mean the freedom to harm others. With or without zoning, direct & indirect harm can be punished.
It would be better for everyone if harm were avoided rather than punished or even mitigated after the fact.
People think all that sounds crazy and radical, but forget that that the truly radical stuff happened in the 1910s and 20s. That's when we threw out the previous system entirely for the modern administrative state. And it's worth noting the earlier system gave us every "historic" place today that we love, privately run and successful mass transit, very affordable cities, etc. Of course there were abuses, too, because that's true in every system. And the systems we've had since have given us drive-only communities, unsustainable suburban development, social dysfunction, and much more. End of rant!
"Next week... on The Messy City..."
;)
Hahahaha
Abolish zoning. Break up cities over 50k people. Privatize all local government services to make them competitive. Abolish DOTs and privatize infrastructure. How are those Overton windows?
You reminded me to embed a link to an earlier article about privatized transportation. ;)
You're speaking my love language.
Another useful paradigm is Timur Kuram’s preference falsification. He was mostly writing about political revolutions in dictatorial regimes and how there needs to be a critical mass built up before the damn breaks, but his meta observation that things happen slowly and then they happen quickly has some bearing on Overton window shifts.
Specific to zoning, there are def dozens of us ready to overturn Euclid :) Lot of preliminary steps on the legal side, though. More broadly, zoning has such good marketing that most folks just assume it does what it says on the tin and protects elementary school students from glue factories or something. Most people conflate zoning with all land use, too, so talking abolition makes them think you’re pitching ancapistan or some such nonsense.
I'm not familiar w/ Kuram, now I have homework.
The wiki is actually pretty comprehensive
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification
I give more context on Substack articles than I do X, but two reasons I like to say "abolish zoning":
1. It's an unnecessary evil. I really do want to abolish it. There are many other building & development rules that can keep the kids safe from the glue factories. ;)
2. It turns heads and implies a value judgment. Similar to "legalize housing."
> Another useful paradigm is Timur Kuram’s preference falsification.
Also preference cascade. See "Patriotism and Preferences" by Glenn Reynolds ( instapundit.substack.com ), TCS Daily, March 13 2002.
> This illustrates, in a mild way, the reason why totalitarian regimes collapse so suddenly. Such regimes have little legitimacy, but they spend a lot of effort making sure that citizens don't realize the extent to which their fellow-citizens dislike the regime. If the secret police and the censors are doing their job, 99% of the populace can hate the regime and be ready to revolt against it - but no revolt will occur because no one realizes that everyone else feels the same way.
> This works until something breaks the spell, and the discontented realize that their feelings are widely shared, at which point the collapse of the regime may seem very sudden to outside observers - or even to the citizens themselves. Claims after the fact that many people who seemed like loyal apparatchiks really loathed the regime are often self-serving, of course. But they're also often true: Even if one loathes the regime, few people have the force of will to stage one-man revolutions, and when preferences are sufficiently falsified, each dissident may feel that he or she is the only one, or at least part of a minority too small to make any difference.