pull down to refresh
Property rights enforcement becomes the real issue.
The VC/charter-city pitch (as I understand it) is basically “cities run like firms” where:
• governance is contractual (opt-in terms vs public law)
• disputes go to private arbitration/courts
• compliance is driven by access (housing, work, services, financial rails, reputation)
• administration is managerial, not electoral
But what happens when someone refuses the ruling? At some point you need an escalation ladder that ends in physical enforcement. Whoever controls that last-mile force effectively functions like a state, whatever you call it.
So my question: if your “private” system still needs someone who can ultimately make people obey through force, how is that meaningfully different from having a government?
One difference is that all members will have entered into the agreement consensually.
Another distinction that has to be drawn is that between a state and a governing body. A state claims the right and monopoly of initiatory violence. If that claim isn’t being made by the private arbiter, then any overreach on their part is just ordinary criminality. It’s still a practical concern that these projects need to address.
What I’m looking for is a system that is built with decentralizing incentives and clear simple property rights rules. It should be able to more easily evolve in a freer direction than in a less free one.
It seems like you’re conflating the terms “public” and “state”, or at least omitting the possibility of a private order that has public oversight internally.
I’m all for working on parallel institutions but not ones that don’t offer better property rights enforcement.