[johncessna]

Conservativism isn't anarchy. It's about pushing government down to local levels where the impacted have the best ability to change the policies if they aren't liked/wanted.

I'd say an HAO def fits that bill. I've been in both chill HOAs and draconian ones. If you don't like it, join the board and motivate all the other like minded folks and get things changed.

[anon291]

Sure.. I believe in breaking cities up to be smaller and more manageable. For example, my neighborhood in my city of Portland ought to be its own city because we have little in common with the politics of the rest of the city. That is why there is a political process we can follow to do that. Its called incorporation and has happened many times before all over the country. Cities are not fixed in stone. We don't need a new organization to do what cities used to.

Moreover, your analogy falls apart because HOAs are not governments and the people aren't protected from them the way they are a government. As much as I disagree with the city of Portland politically, I can post whatever messages I want outside my non HOA home and the city can do jack shit about it, because, as an American government they are unable to patrol my speech.

If HOAs were governments then I would have a different opinion (I would be somewhat in favor). However they are not.

As a final point of difference. A foundational principle of conservative governance is that governments are formed for and BY the people. However, HOAs are formed by development companies typically. Corporations are not people (and are not legally treated as such, despite widespread belief). Corporations have no right to form a government that the future residents cannot modify. HOAs are much harder to get rid of than a city. Thus, we have an example of an alleged American government that was never formed by a group of residents and cannot be modified or eliminated by them. That's problematic and un American