Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 10:17 AM
Subject: Deed Restrictions – bogus?
Hello, I was recently arguing with people about property rights and the topic of deed restrictions came up. In the situation person A was selling the house to person B. Person A included restrictions such as you are unable to wear yellow shirts, or have chickens, or even you have to pay all the taxes the government says. If person B agrees to buy that house must they follow all of the deed restrictions? If they do not follow them do they lose the house back to person A? I am not a troll or anything like that. I am a voluntaryist and this whole deed restriction thing does not seem right to me. At the same time this is a contract that person B is not forced to sign. But at the same time how can person B really own the house if they must follow the rules from person A? It would make sense if person B was renting the house from person A because person A would be the real owner at that point still. Am I on the right track or is this true about the deed restrictions and I would have to follow the laws/taxes of the government if I/person B bought a house from someone? I eagerly await your response and I hope that you can clear up this issue for me.
Dear TS: I favor the legalization of all deed restrictions, except of course for those requiring the breaking of libertarian law. I may not sell you my house with the proviso that you go out and murder an innocent person in order to take possession of it. Other than that, there should be no limits. I once overheard two libertarians, who should have known better, complaining about the totalitarian requirements of a condo association housing development: all houses had to be painted the same color, have the same type of picket fence, parking was strictly limited. All homeowners had to have the same color curtains, for goodness sake. My point to them, and, now, to you, is, hey, everyone who purchased a home there AGREED to be bound by these “intrusive” strictures. Complaining about them is like a boxer objecting to his opponent punching him in the nose. Hey, they both AGREED to be hit (above the belt, of course). If person B violates his contract with person A, the former should sue the latter. Presumably, unless it is an egregious violation, the house would not pass back into the ownership of A.