[MereInterest]

Suppose it's the 1960s, and you want to buy something to eat. Your choices are "Go home and make food." and "Go to a smoke-filled restaurant and buy food." The choice of "Go to a non-smoking restaurant and buy food." doesn't exist in that environment, because there are no such restaurants. It would be silly to state that this is a free choice indicating a preference for smoke-filled restaurants, because there is no alternative that maintains the option of going to a restaurant.

Depending on the location, the only houses available may have mandatory HOA membership. If the choice is "Join an HOA or add 30 minutes to your commute.", that isn't a free choice. If the choice is "Join an HOA or find a job in another city.", that isn't a free choice. Depending on the area, mandated HOA membership may be the de facto law of the land, even if it isn't the de jure law of the land.

Choices must always be compared to their alternative, and using a non-existent Hobbesian state of nature as the alternative is overly simplistic.

[croon]

While I agree with everything you said, it's a bit ironic that the comparison drawn is between an HOA putting restrictions on what you can do in service of collective benefit as something negative, to before such restrictions was put on restaurants in service of allowing people to get food without second hand smoke.

I understand people will have different preferences, but someone making tar or smoking fish on their lawn 24/7 affects all neighbors, while an HOA rule restricting that only affects that one person, and everyone else can enjoy their yards unsmoked.

[MereInterest]

Good point, and I realized that partway through writing it, but couldn't find a good way to tie it all together. It's more that I get frustrated at "freely entered agreement" being used as justification in any argument, as it's usually a wild stretch of the word "freely".