Your position seems a bit ideological. Ultimate freedom doesn't exist, since pretty much all societies agree that they want to stop people from murdering one another for instance.
Any legal system always has to balance individual liberties and the tyranny of the majority (or a law-giving minority).
> An HOA that was useful for 50 years and never created any drama could turn bad next year when they elect some new board members.
That's why countries for instance have constitutions, so the system is hard to change even when someone new takes power.
> true freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes, even big mistakes.
That's pretty much the reason why we don't have "true freedom" and we want to stop people from making really terrible and easily avoidable mistakes, like eating food that kills them.
Limiting HOA against petty bullshit requirements (with more freedom for an initial set of bullshit requirements) at least is one of these limitations.
Any legal system always has to balance individual liberties and the tyranny of the majority (or a law-giving minority).
> An HOA that was useful for 50 years and never created any drama could turn bad next year when they elect some new board members.
That's why countries for instance have constitutions, so the system is hard to change even when someone new takes power.
> true freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes, even big mistakes.
That's pretty much the reason why we don't have "true freedom" and we want to stop people from making really terrible and easily avoidable mistakes, like eating food that kills them.
Limiting HOA against petty bullshit requirements (with more freedom for an initial set of bullshit requirements) at least is one of these limitations.