Check it out, it actually sounds really amazing:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2011/03/a_quick_case_fo.html
The point of charter cities is to peacefully create pockets of high-quality First World governance in the heart of the Third World. How? By persuading Third World governments to create new self-governing cities exempt from most existing laws. These new cities could be governed by foreign law, and administered by foreign governments - or even a for-profit corporation. While the specifics are intentionally flexible, there are three core building blocks of any charter city:
- An uninhabited piece of city-sized land, provided voluntarily by a host government.
- A charter that specifies the rules that will govern the new city.
- The freedom for would-be charter city residents, investors, and employers to move in or out.
Hmm, so what happens when the city starts being a business center and the national government wants a piece of the action? I guess it’d be a teaching opportunity, though.
No that’s what the Free State Project is for. Why move to a 3rd world country when NH is right there with plenty of an-caps already?
“I have an idea! What if we used contract and property theory to reinvent the state?”
Wheylous, I would suggest reading that article that ES posted in the left-libertarian thread. Spangler uses a pretty good quote from Rothbard about why this is a horrible idea.
But basically, the idea is to have corporations from first world countries come in and govern the third world for profit? Where did I hear about this before?
Ok, indulge us. Where did you hear this before?
Did you read the article? The idea is that the land is previously unoccupied and people choose to come in voluntarily. While may not result in complete AnCap/minarchy, if you’re into reducing world poverty, this sounds like a good idea.
Think about Europe circa 1800.
Seriously, this idea is disgusting on a number of levels. First, all you’ve effectively done is take the situation of a colony and replace key words with free market jargon. Second, who exactly are these charters making agreements with? The government of a country? It’s pretty clear to see how that would go wrong, corporations making contracts with the state to run a city at profit. Especially considering the third world already owes money to the first world because of colonialism, it would be especially disgusting to see first world corporations come in for a bigger piece of the pie. Or is the charter making a contract with the people? If so, I don’t see how this is substantially different from your run-of-the-mill city-state. Or does the critique of the state and taxes go out the window as long as we replace “state” with “board of directors” and “taxes” with “rent”?
Isn’t that what Dubai is?
Clayton -
Nothing you mentioned sounds disgusting to me. The land is uninhabited, and just a wild shot in the dark here, the company has contracts with everyone involved. If you think that normal city-states have actual contracts with their inhabitants…well, that sounds like a Centinel-type idea.
the critique of mandatory government is inapplicable to voluntary government.
The hunting lands of the Native Americans were uninhabitated too, and the people that originally colonized them did so by way of private charter…
I have a novel idea. What if the first world left the third world alone for once since the 17th century?
This mode of thinking is where the division between thickness and thinness comes into play. If we can just replace all the state’s functions with private sector vocab, then everything will be okay, is the thinking of very vulgar libertarians indeed.
Well if there was a contract with some aborigines to sell some hunting land, I really dont see a problem. If the aborigine’s property rights are disregarded, thats a crime. The rest of your post seems like agitprop. Heres a novel idea: why not let free individuals make mutually consensual deals.
your continual references to vocabulary are akin to an observer of the “horseless carriage” insisting that transportation will be as it always has been, you cannot change transportation by replacing “carriages” with “cars” and “hay” with “petroleum.”
There weren’t contracts, and I don’t understand what line of thinking makes anyone thing the first world will get it right this time.
My constant reference to vocabulary is to insist that you are suggesting no substantial change. It’s not a carriage with a horse! It’s a carriage with a mule!
Perhaps the difference is that, this time, there are to be contracts. This would constitute substantial change.
Many previously planned libertarian countries have failed. Now, two libertarian cities may emerge in the Honduras, with the blessing of the government of the Honduras.
Economist magazine reports…
I think BP has a point. The whole motivation for wanting to go “anywhere outside the first world” is that we’ve screwed up our own system so bad there’s no option but to start from scratch somewhere else. But that’s exactly it… how will exporting this culture onto some new pinpoint on the globe fix anything? It won’t, it will just spread more bad culture. The correct answer is to have the courage to confront the social ills within our society as it is.
Everyone has their own ideas about what is wrong with the culture and how to fix it but there’s a way to allow everyone to keep their own (incompatible) ideas and fix the culture at the same time… namely, start with yourself, start with your family relationships, your friendships and your community. If society is healthy in the small, the rest will work itself out in time. You can’t make a healthy society out of unhealthy personal relationships and exporting the unhealthy culture of our unhealthy society to yet another place won’t fix anything, either.
Clayton -
I’m not ready to abandon Mars to the wolves if thats what youre suggesting. I believe in multiple approaches. The state is losing, its inevitable. They know it, I can give you references. The more paths to a post-state society, the more opportunities for people to find a path that suits them.
What if the first world left the third world alone for once since the 17th century?
As in not trade with them?
@Malachi… would love to see whatever you have. I’ve seen some clips of Brzezinski saying stuff that almost sounded along these lines…
Clayton -
“As in not trade with them?”
No, as in not systematically taking land and resources away from them and asking them to front the bill in the mean time. They did it then with taxes and war reparations (even when the first world lost like with Haiti) and they do it today with their debt.
Do they own the land in the country, though? If it is unoccupied, by your standard it should be fair game, no? Occ/use? Why not advocate anarcho-communist communes in Africa?