Patri Friedman and Mark Lutter: Does a City Need a State?
Patri Friedman and Mark Lutter discuss free cities and "markets in governance" on the latest episode of Just Asking Questions.
In a special edition of Just Asking Questions recorded before a live audience on the Honduran island of Roatán, Reason's Zach Weissmueller and Liz Wolfe talk with Mark Lutter, founder of the Charter Cities Institute, and Patri Friedman, founder and board member of Pronomos Capital, a venture capital firm that invests in charter cities.
The conversation took place at the Alternative Visions for Governance conference sponsored by the Reason Foundation, which publishes Reason. The conference happened within the jurisdiction of Próspera, an autonomous zone for economic development—known as a ZEDE—made possible by a 2013 law passed by the Honduran National Congress.
They discussed lessons learned from the launch of Próspera, which has expanded despite a hostile presidential administration, the proliferation of biohacking and medical procedures within the zone, the history of self-governing cities, the relationship between charter cities and democracy, and where in the world prospects are best for future experiments in privatized governance.
Watch the full conversation on Reason's YouTube channel or on the Just Asking Questions podcast feed on Apple, Spotify, or your preferred podcatcher.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Probably interesting, in a way, but I can read faster than I can listen, and the real question for a libertarian rag is "Do individuals need a State?".
If you want capitalism then you need property rights, and I don’t know how to enforce that without government.
Governments enforce property rights?
I guess that's what eminent domain and property taxes do, huh. Not to mention cops who get immunity for trashing houses which the government then refuses to pay.
Learn something every day.
This may surprise you, but merchants don’t have to accompany their goods to market and keep guard over them to prevent them from being stolen. Government enforced laws against theft actually make it so they don’t have to. Amazing, huh?
This may surprise you, but there are an incredible number of possibilities of "government" that don't require "States".
And if you really want to be surprised, look up "civil asset forfeiture" and "victimless crimes", and Reason had an article a while back on cops specifically targeting an armored car carrying legal cash from a legal marijuana dispensary.
Then there's taxation itself, legalized theft. Are you aware that local, state, and federal governments steal 36% of people's money in the form of Ponzi pension schemes (12%), sales taxes (10%), property taxes (1-2%), income taxes (up to 39%), and a zillion other ways?
Yeah, tell me again how governments enforce property laws, other than "What's yours is mine".
You're saying that merchants can't rely on governments protecting truckers from being robbed. Interesting. Learn something every day.
More often than not it’s the government doing the robbing. I also doubt you are capable of learning anything.
Yet another reason to keep that $25.
That's what, 5 bottles of Boone's Farm?
Once again, you refuse to respond to what I wrote, and only re-assert what you previously claimed and what II responded to.
Fuck off. When you want a serious discussion, indicate that by responding seriously.
This may surprise you, but there are an incredible number of possibilities of “government” that don’t require “States”.
For example...
I've got a t-shirt you wouldn't understand. Something along the lines of "Government: the insane idea that we hire thieves and murderers to protect us from thieves and murderers".
In my heart I’m an anarchist. But my brain understands that governments, if not created intentionally, will naturally emerge in the form of gangs and warlords. There will always be a group of men with the last word in violence over a given geographical area (a contest between governments is called war, and the objective is to control territory with violence). That’s how I define government. Best to have an effective government that protects rights than emergent warlords.
Yes, that’s it! We need a strong government to enforce anarchy!
It's called "anarcho-tyranny".
You only need a weak government for that,
And, and, and ... apparently you haven't been paying attention to all the mass looting and store invasions which government courts won't enforce by throwing criminals in jail.
I could go on, but what a waste that would be.
Isolated examples of government not doing its duty is proof that government doesn’t protect property rights at all?
Being that that's what passes for logic around here, talking to you is indeed a waste of time. And a great example of why I won’t pay a stinking penny to comment here.
You need every stinking penny to buy cheap booze.
Try actually responding above to what I wrote, instead of just repeating what you have already said which has already been responded to.
Try being "serious" for a change.
I'm not in the "taxes are theft" camp, though I'm not a fan of cops stealing stuff. Not sure how to respond. Government taking stuff doesn't mean government doesn't enforce property rights. Just means that the people in government don't apply the rules to themselves. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? No one's figured that one out.
What a fucking loser. "No one's figured that out" so you just give up and accept Big Brother stealing from everybody as your guardians against theft by non-State actors which they sure aren't doing very well.
Thanks for reminding me why $25 is $25 too much to pay to argue with idiots. Would be an exercise in masochism.
Government does deter thugs from coming in, murdering you and taking up residence in your home. At least in non democrat/Marxist cities and states.
Let's say no.
If that's the case, I propose severing the bridges and roads into and out of the cities.
Plastic explosives should do fine.
Or just stop delivering food.
The first states were cities.
Do states need cities?
No. I'm in favor of kicking Chicago out of mine.
Hey, I was about to ask that.
I say no. And if/when the apocalypse comes, we can see which area survives.
Time is short now. I don't believe we'll make it through the year.
Does a City Need a State?
Ask the District of Columbia or any city in a territory (e.g., San Juan, Puerto Rico).
Do cities need states?
Of course they do.
Who will oppress the denizens of a city if not The State?
The crime gangs.
We’re importing them right now.
I spent over a year tryiing to work toward some of the things these guys talk about. Telosa , California Forever, Snailbrook, etc.
But they will fail for at least 3 reasons
1) A libertarian paradise? How about a place that honors the Founders and the Constitution.Anything else is seed of dissension.
2)Very noticable lack of Churches and that means the pyschos will blossom like ragweed.And of that I am sure.
3) Too much emphasis on Yuppies and non-family types. Anybody who witnessed the unfolding of downtown St Louis knows what I mean, or the Central West End. A real family was scarce as polonium …lots of gays,lots of single sharky guys…but any of the famous intermediate institutions — naaaaah ...same with rebuilding Memphis...huge complexes like St Jude's and raw poverty all around the circumference.
The presence of churches or other houses of worship are not an indicator of the morality of a population. For example, Gastonia, NC and it's big city neighbor Charlotte, NC are chock-a-block with Christian churches of all Denominations, along with Jewish synagogues, Islamic mosques, Buddhist temples, and Hindu shrines, and they both have crime rates equal to and sometimes exceeding Northern cities.
Gastonia, NC is nicknamed "Little Chicago" because in the Seventies and Eighties, it had per capital murder rates as big as Chicago.
By contrast, New Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont are among the most Secular States of the U.S. and have much less crime than other States with greater levels for religious practice..
Actual moral people do right by each other whether or not they think anyone (or a Supernatural Anyone) is watching.
YOu don’t even know logic. To say something is not an indicator does not imply no connection. And your last statement is stupid.
Franklin to Paine :
From Benjamin Franklin to ———, [13 December 1757]
” If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?”
How stupidly illogical you are !! By your own admission those who are good because they think they are being watched will NOT be good if they think they are not watched.
Grow the hell up.
The Barenaked Ladies obviously never met Liz Wolfe and seen how she rocks fashion:
"If I Had A Million Dollars,
If I Had A Million Dollars,
I'd buy you a green dress,
But not a real green dress, that's cruel..."
🙂
😉
If I Had $1,000,000--Barenaked Ladies (BEST ONE)
https://youtu.be/LHacDYj8KZM?si=vfvEwLjWIz0vAuyL
These guys remind me of divorce lawyers. Naah, don't stay with your city, don't clean it up, let is rot....I know. let's build a new city according to my views and you can foot the bill and the future social costs., So crime is a problem and seems a mystery to you??? Why??
27 of Top 30 Crime-Ridden Cities Run by Democrats
Samantha Aschieris
You had a gay clueless woman running Chicago --- into the ground