The trouble with at, as I see it, is that if you are not presuming liberty/commutative justice it is very hard to argue for the need for unanimous consent. In other words, once you accept that it is fine to force people to use their property as you see fit, why require unanimity instead of 90%, 60%, 51%? Without the liberty principle you are just haggling over how many votes it takes, and as we have seen from history "100% of votes" is not generally the result of such haggling.
> I have offered a proposal for state legislative action that would provide a procedure for the creation of new private neighborhood associations in established neighborhoods.
> I propose to establish a legal mechanism by which an existing neighborhood could create a private neighborhood association. It would be similar to the incorporation of a new municipality, but it would result in the creation of a private neighborhood based on a private property relationship among the property owners of the neighborhood. In order to approve the establishment of the new private neighborhood association, a large supermajority vote would be required. Assuming the supermajority could be achieved, those who voted against forming a neighborhood association would nevertheless be required to become members. (pp. 44 - 45)
It's almost as though the real objective of "free market" think tanks - like Cato, and others - isn't about individual freedom and liberty, but expanding corporate power under the guise of contract law.
The trouble with at, as I see it, is that if you are not presuming liberty/commutative justice it is very hard to argue for the need for unanimous consent. In other words, once you accept that it is fine to force people to use their property as you see fit, why require unanimity instead of 90%, 60%, 51%? Without the liberty principle you are just haggling over how many votes it takes, and as we have seen from history "100% of votes" is not generally the result of such haggling.
In 2004 the Cato Institute published a proposal to conscript existing homeowners into H.O.A. corporations with a 70% threshold.
"The Private Neighborhood" by Robert Nelson. Regulation. Vol. 27 No. 2 Summer 2004
@ https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2004
@ https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2004/7/v27n2-5.pdf
> I have offered a proposal for state legislative action that would provide a procedure for the creation of new private neighborhood associations in established neighborhoods.
> I propose to establish a legal mechanism by which an existing neighborhood could create a private neighborhood association. It would be similar to the incorporation of a new municipality, but it would result in the creation of a private neighborhood based on a private property relationship among the property owners of the neighborhood. In order to approve the establishment of the new private neighborhood association, a large supermajority vote would be required. Assuming the supermajority could be achieved, those who voted against forming a neighborhood association would nevertheless be required to become members. (pp. 44 - 45)
It's almost as though the real objective of "free market" think tanks - like Cato, and others - isn't about individual freedom and liberty, but expanding corporate power under the guise of contract law.
Seven out of ten neighbors agree, they get to take over the property of the other three. The cupidity of humans but rarely rests.