[LiteKeeper]

read later

[jim_trent]

Someone said, tyranny of the majority is worse than a dictatorship because there are more dictators in a majority (paraphrase). Sounds about right.

Restrictive covenants are bad, but you have the choice of living there or not living there. Zoning laws do not give you a choice.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Tyranny by the masses is tyranny nonetheless.

[Luna]

Would Home Owners Associations qualify as tyrannical entities? Based upon the horror stories I've heard, I would say YES.

"You can't have cheesey lawn ornaments. I don't care that you own the property and pay the taxes on it. You do what the HOA tells you to do."

"You can't paint your house a gaudy color, even though you do own it."

Scary.

[RobRoy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Democracy is when five rapists and four women vote on how to spend the afternoon.

Democracy is when five wolves and four sheep vote on what to have for lunch.

A "super majority" does help, of course.

[Publius6961]

R-e-p-u-b-l-i-c.
R-e-p-e-s-e-n-t-a-t-i-v-e. .D-e-m-o-c-r-a-c-y.

Why is this discussion even even necessary?

[harrym]

Interesting, was just reading something about the Contract clause in the Constitution and how Daniel Webster won a lawsuit in the early 1800's (Dartmouth College v. New Hampshire??) that has connection here. Seems there were ongoing battles between Jeffersonian Federalists who pushed the common good and (the then) Republicans who believed in private property rights. The war never ends, does it?

[DannyTN]

If they bought a house with restrictive covenants that subjected them to a homeowners association, then they have no legitimate beef. They knew it coming in.

Practically every restrictive covenant and homeowners association I'm aware off was set up before the devoper sold the property.

If they bought there, and then try to break the covenants, they are violating the rights of the other homeowners, who also bought there perhaps because of the convenants. They are inconsiderate of the rights of the existing home owners.

[AuntB]

"The bulwark against tyranny of the majority, no less so than against one-party or dictatorial rule, is the institution of a vigilantly protected system of private-property rights."

This cannot be repeated often enough. The article reminds me of two recent conversations I had. One was with a good 2nd amendment rights person who said he didn't have the time to care about property rights. I asked him what he intended to protect with that gun when his home was gone. The second, a "former" relative who had been on my land rights mailing list for years when I sent an article out to all, informed me that he wasn't interested in "politics" and that he was performing a greater good "feeding the poor" in our county. That's the kind of short sightedness that destroys nations.

Thanks for the article, Ernest.

[LiberalBuster]

The Federalist #10, James Madison:
"...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions..."