And FT's point, I believe, is that if those people voluntarily agree to those restrictions they are unobjectionable (although perhaps unwise).
What I find interesting about HOA's is how they seem to follow the same trajectory as government power - but faster.
In general, HOA's start out unobjectionably. Heck, they're even good. As some one else pointed out, they can serve to keep some one from wrecking property values all around by making their home an eyesore. All well and good.
However, they never seem to stay that way. They seem to expand into ever smaller regions of your house, and become more and more filled with busybodies. They either reinterpret, or amend, the original HOA - right in accordance with the rules, perhaps, but it still happens.
Going with the unoriginal, I suppose this is because the people who get on the boards are the ones who want to use that power. Those who are generally pleased with the neighborhood usually don't bother pushing too hard. These power seekers can usually manage to amend the rules (most HOA's have set procedures for doing so) by the simple matter of going to the meetings, and trying again and again. Most people don't do that, thus handing the boards ever increasing power.
In time, many HOA's do resemble small tyrannies - complete with political infighting and favors doled out to friends of the board. And, of course, revenge on the boards' opponents. (No, I've never lived in an HOA neighborhood. My cousin and two friends of mine have, and their stories bear remarkable similarities.)
I suppose the question is why this happens faster in HOA's than in the country at large - maybe just because there are fewer people. It may be instructive to try to restore some HOA's to their good old "original intent" just to get some practice at the small scale, eh?
Drew Garrett