---
title: ""I agree with the above in principle but also argue there should be a..."
date: 2022-06-06
source: facebook
type: comment
context: "Archer T. Ships replied to Scott Chelette's comment."
fb_link: "https://www.facebook.com/dyi/l/?l=AYNJij-NvU38-lKZKg32bbqyq-TVGOHea86ZJBFvUgFl0-9fGe28Waz1slOEcSaaORCJeogJfOKCxI1VIhCZMKXcuHLAtmoWueZl19NCos7ucRYABBsciae4e_EkrU1R1-QJynkTIk31_IRQdx3Uzsog7TVL0QsVXJwr2eLMckfwl-TGlY5ENYPbiA6owOvlyLISzjUyhF4&s=519"
---

# "I agree with the above in principle but also argue there should be a...

*June 6, 2022 — Comment Archer T. Ships replied to Scott Chelette's comment.*

"I agree with the above in principle but also argue there should be a right for private owners to freely associate and coordinate their activities. " In a free market, they can.  It's called buying the land.  Or entering into voluntary contracts with other property owners (such as an HOA). What you advocate is _not_ "free" association.  You and a gang want to _coerce_ everyone in town to obey your dictates, under threat of imprisonment or death. And even if one concedes that they have the right to impose zoning, it's still contemptuous for the government to severely constrain housing construction so that rich people can keep out poor people and blacks/hispanics, and/or preserve their view.    Especially nominal progressives, who so often mouth pious proclamations about how much they care for the poor, minorities, and the environment.