Not long ago, the libertarian community began actively discussing the “Prospera” project – a charter city in Honduras. The idea of charter cities in general is quite popular among libertarians, many of whom view the option of autonomous jurisdictions and free economic zones, carved out from the jurisdiction of a state, as a real possibility for achieving a free society.
Regardless of the dreams associated with ideas of this kind, they shatter in the same way that the idea of seasteading and the creation of jurisdictions outside state territories in general shatters (you can find more details on this in the material “Why you should not count on the creation of new jurisdictions in the ocean or space”). If violence is still a current tool for achieving goals and the newly minted jurisdiction has no means of deterring an external attack (let’s be honest: for a small charter city against a giant stationary bandit, the only deterrent weapon could be WMDs like viruses), then its autonomy is merely an unsupported handout from the master. Seriously, how can one even expect to create a free jurisdiction by the grace of a stationary bandit (the “state”)?
Of course, I do not dispute that at a certain point in time, there may be people in the government of a specific state who are absolutely not opposed to such initiatives and are willing to allocate territory for them on terms of maximum autonomy and the ability to independently manage internal affairs, even up to the creation of their own laws and law enforcement mechanisms. But such power, like any other power, cannot be eternal. In any case, sooner or later, changes will occur in the government, and where are the guarantees that the new power will not want to liquidate such autonomy, or at least begin to reduce it in small steps so as not to cause excessive discontent with abrupt decisions? For example, as the Chinese government did with Hong Kong? Agreements themselves, in this case, will not help; the government may simply not care about them. History already has hundreds and thousands of examples of free cities and broad autonomies of various kinds, and where are they all now—did agreements with the central government help them?
Of course, representatives of such an autonomy could create their own political force and use it to lobby their interests in the central government. However, in doing so, they only involve themselves in another struggle for power over the tool of state violence. And this is a movement in a direction completely opposite to achieving a free, non-violent society. Factually, this is the same as simply changing the power in order to forcibly impose one’s own norms on society—this cannot be linked to libertarianism in any way.
Hoping for the mercy of the master is a foolish venture. Without the elimination of violence as a phenomenon in general, or at least without the presence of deterrent weapons, an autonomy carved out by a stationary bandit is worth nothing and is backed by nothing. And if such means are available, then perhaps it makes more sense to exit the jurisdiction of the stationary bandit in some developed place, for example, within a large city, rather than on bare land where one would still have to spend billions of dollars creating infrastructure and attracting people?
