Exit

Christians in the Closet

untitled

Ace points us to this Rod Dreher account of his interview with a “deeply closeted” Christian professor at an “elite law school.” It’s long, but worth it, if you like that feeling of wanting to punch someone in the mouth.

“The sad thing,” he said, “is that the old ways of aspiring to truth, seeing all knowledge as part of learning about the nature of reality, they don’t hold. It’s all about power. They’ve got cultural power, and think they should use it for good, but their idea of good is not anchored in anything. They’ve got a lot of power in courts and in politics and in education. Their job is to challenge people to think critically, but thinking critically means thinking like them. They really do think that they know so much more than anybody did before, and there is no point in listening to anybody else, because they have all the answers, and believe that they are good.”

The rest might make one more and more depressed, the farther one gets into it: coming attacks on Christian schools, purging of professional organizations, removal of opportunities for Christians in the corporate world, etc. There are, naturally, references to The Benedict Option.

I believe Dreher and others are overlooking some key and unique cultural points about the United States. First, there are at least 200 million private firearms in the US, many if not most of them in the hands of cultural conservatives. Second, most “elites” can’t operate a gun, or even hold one in their hands without urinating in their pants suits. Third, the national government (“Feds”) hasn’t quite seized complete control of every aspect of life from the states.

Our good and faithful elite Christian law professor paints a picture of American Christians gradually giving in on all points, retreating from politics and the courts, and, especially, not getting fighting mad. Probably, he’s never been to a Knights of Columbus meeting.

fascisiti

Here’s my alternative scenario of the future: Certain elements in the  “red states” resist the liberal fascisiti. I think we now know that this isn’t going to be the Governors, considering the simpering performance of Pence and Hutchison, but some conservative legislative majorities would probably risk being boycotted by the NCAA in order to make a statement. More pressure, financial and legal, is brought to bear from DC and the Gay Corporate Mafia. Decent people from around the country rally ’round the besieged state(s). Some even move there, or at least camp out with rifles…and then, magically, an Enclave of Sanity independent of the Blue State sewers will be carved out of Flyover Country, the gays will go back to sodomizing each other in New York and Hollywood and everyone will live happily ever after…

Yeah, I’m not buying it, either.

I guess all I’m sure of is that America ain’t Rome under Nero, American progressives don’t have the moral certainty nor the backbone to actually kill American Christians, and American Christians aren’t as a body going to hide in the closet from sodomites and their “allies.”

The men who lie with men, the women who lie with women, the men who think they’re women, the ones who want to sodomize animals and children, and their elite enablers: Are threats of boycotts and Twitter hate campaigns and not getting hired at UCLA really going to cause American Christians to pretend to approve of this? To turn their faces away and pretend not to notice?

If so, it really is the End, and I’ll shut up and go in the closet and watch the show.

And sharpen my sword.

Euroscepticism

Secession lagniappe

Bruce Thornton over at The Hoover Institution says the European Union’s days are numbered.  Among the culprits are demographics, excessive regulation, monolithic monetary policy, welfare statism, secularism, multiculturalism, and rising nationalism, some of which are certainly intertwined.  As he correctly points out, this list is mostly well understood – but perhaps the “perfect storm” view of it all is not.  Pat Buchanan summarizes the piece as well.  Here’s Thornton:

Nor over the last century have the various substitutes for Christianity managed to fill the void. Political religions like communism and fascism failed bloodily, leaving behind mountains of corpses. Nor has secular social democracy, with its utopian ideals, provided people with a transcendent principle that justifies sacrifice for the greater good, or even gives people a reason to reproduce. A shared commitment to leisure, a short workweek, and a generous social safety net is nothing worth killing or dying for. Neither is the vague idea of a transnational E.U. ruled by unaccountable Eurocrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.

More important, from its beginning, the idea of the E.U. depended on the denigration of patriotism and national pride, for these were seen as the road to the exclusionary, blood-and-soil nationalism that fed Nazism and fascism. Yet all peoples are the product of a particular culture, language, mores, histories, traditions, and landscapes. The “postmodern” abstract E.U. ideal of transcending such parochial identities was destined to collide with the real cultural differences between European nations.

Don’t miss Chris Roth’s 10 separatist movements to watch in 2015.  It’s quite good.  A few excerpts below.  On Catalonia (#9):

Don’t let last month’s anticlimactic referendum fool you: Spain is fragmenting, and disappointment over what happened—and especially what didn’t—in November will only deepen the cracks.  Catalans are just looking for the next vehicle for their frustration and impatience.

And East Turkestan (#8):

Uyghurs do, if they play it right, have the capacity to make Xinjiang ungovernable.  It’s possible a truly general uprising would result in a bloodbath that would make the Tiananmen Square massacre look like nothing.  But if it happens in the context of a general unraveling of Chinese unity—with separatist sentiment on the rise in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Tibet as well—then anything can happen.

Go read his Kurdistan (#1) comments for yourself – not to be missed.

Cleanest data yet proving Crimeans are very happy with Russian annexation via the Christian Science Monitor.  Putin celebrated the 1-year anniversary by more extensively integrating the separatist South Ossetia region of Georgia.  Russia beat back Georgia in 2008 in their defense, recognizes it as an independent state, and shovels it plenty of cash.  None of this is lost on their President:

Mr. Tibilov remarked that Wednesday marked a year since Russia annexed Crimea. “We welcomed that step from the first day. South Ossetia welcomes all political steps that Russia’s leadership makes.” (WSJ)

Georgia’s other separatist region, Abkhazia, signed a treaty with Russia a few months ago as well, which this blog linked to at the time.  Both come in at #4 in Roth’s 2015 list, where he calls them “puppet states” and says they have both “openly asked to be annexed by Russia.”

Despite its geographic size, South Ossetia only holds about 50,000 people.  Here is the wikipedia entry and below is a map of the region as well as their coat of arms.

zchinvaliMap1

500px-Coat_of_arms_of_South_Ossetia.svg

Related: how nervous does Putin make Estonia?

Why countries that recognize Palestine turn their back on Kosovo. (Hint: It’s America). Interesting read, although I’m not sure how the parties in question don’t also make use of “righteous indignation” in various ways.  Anyways, the gist:

This ultimately renders humanitarian appeals for recognition in Kosovo and Palestine (and Abkhazia, and eastern Ukraine, and Kurdistan) rather dishonest. The nations in question, the actual people vying for self-determination, are championed by their respective supporters as suffering nobly under the yoke of amoral oppressors. To the pro-Kosovo faction, big-bad Russia and little-bad Serbia impede international recognition for the sake of being bad. To the pro-Palestine crowd, big-bad America and little-bad Israel deny Palestinian sovereignty within the same, moralistic, black-and-white framework.

All parties seem to use righteous indignation to their political advantage; except, of course, the parties with the most tangible stakes: the Kosovars and Palestinians. They are minimized to little more than chess pieces—pawns, in fact, the most disposable of chess pieces—buffeted between elite players in the great game of 21st century realpolitik. A game that, for these would-be states, offers no discernible prize.

A Robin Hanson reading of this might conclude secession isn’t (always) about independence.  Related: Iranian propaganda in Kosovo and Netanyahu backs off his pre-election vow of no Palestinian statehood

A majority (52%) of Germans now want Greece out of the Eurozone.  That’s 11 points higher than two weeks earlier.

Is a Scottish exit inevitable?

Icelandic President: “Independence in itself can never be a negative.”

The Dutch government must compensate the families of Indonesian men it summarily executed in that country’s war for independence in the 1940s

Good stats are hard to come by, but violence in Xinjiang / East Turkestan seems to be on the rise.

Hong Kong in disarray

China defending its South China Sea activity

*****

Both Lake and Lassen Counties voted 3-2 to place the State of Jefferson on their general ballots. A dissenting Lassen county supervisor prefers to take aim at a 1964 Supreme Court Decision instead.

Lew Rockwell invokes Lysander Spooner and Frank Chodorov to beat back anti-secessionist “regime libertarians”, and closes with this:

 Secession is not a popular idea among the political and media classes in America, to be sure, and regime libertarians may roll their eyes at it, but a recent poll found about a quarter of Americans sympathetic to the idea, despite the ceaseless barrage of nationalist propaganda emitted from all sides. A result like this confirms what we already suspected: that a substantial chunk of the public is willing to entertain unconventional thoughts. And that’s all to the good. Conventional American thoughts are war, centralization, redistribution, and inflation. The most unconventional thought in America today is liberty.

Lengthy City Journal piece on California’s founding that opens with a bang:

The founding of California was an adventure, an epic, a tragicomedy, a conquest, and a window into America’s soul. It was a creation ex nihilo that reveals the roots of society, the establishment of justice, and the very nature of man. “All our brutal passions were here to have full sweep, and all our moral strength, all our courage, our patience, our docility, and our social skill were to contend with these passions,” native son Josiah Royce wrote of his motherland in 1886.  Philosophers have long extrapolated from existing states, of whose origins the precise details are lost, just how political life comes into being. In California, there is no need to speculate. It happened only yesterday, every noble act and sordid deed alike recorded.

Came across a recent internet poll asking if Upstate NY should secede.  Comment # 8 is worth a look, highlighting the usual rural / urban policy mismatch.

South Miami is looking for help splitting Florida up.

Crying secession in Maine

The Republic of Oregon – 1840-1870

*****

Assimilation is an issue of scale and polycentrism can help.  (very relevant to Thornton’s EU piece.)

Alex Tabarrok and in the NYT with an op-ed on private cities.  See also his chat with Russ Roberts on this topic.

Viewing_Skyline_at_Jamshedpur_City

Jamshedpur, a private city in India

The Economist is optimistic on the American Latino demographic.

For an open Mexican border, sans citizenship

The marginal cases argument for open immigration

March 16th was Open Borders Day and an Open Borders Manifesto was written up.  Here is their link round-up from the day.

Small countries in need of cash are selling rights to citizenship. Programs in Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Malta will have EU-wide ramifications.

Anarcho-capitalists in Cuba

Seasteading might get its own reality show.

(Image sources 1, 2, 3 and 4)

512px-Seal_of_the_Republic_of_Texas_(colorized).svg

Secession lagniappe

Apologies for any paywalled links, I’ve tried to double-up sources where that occurs.

Local law enforcement teamed up with the FBI to raid a meeting of The Republic of Texas, a group that believes they never legally joined the union. More here.  And a RT documentary on the group from last year:

 

A group of Southern Tier towns in New York are threatening secession due to their state’s fracking ban.  The Economist picked up the story in its last issue:

The Southern Tier used to be called the “Valley of Opportunity”, with companies like IBM employing thousands. But the area’s big employers left or downsized long ago. The economy is stagnant, with houses for sale everywhere. Windsor cannot afford a police department. Even its funeral homes are long gone. Meanwhile, just yards away in Pennsylvania, Great Bend is thriving. The neighbours have new cars, freshly painted houses and jobs, and all from shale.

In Oregon, a petition to split off East Portland was shot down and “would need to be rewritten.”

*****

Independence movements are alive and well across Europe, according to Peter Geoghegan at The Irish Times:

European borders have shifted only a handful of times over the last two decades: the dissolution of Serbia and Montenegro; Kosovan independence in 2008; Russia’s annexation of Crimea last year. But the boundaries are unlikely to remain so static.

In Belgium, the divide between French-speaking Wallonia and Dutch-speaking Flanders has long stymied attempts to foster national unity. The largest party in the whole of Belgium is the nationalist New Flemish Alliance (N-VA). The N-VA has previously called for the more prosperous Flanders to leave the Francophone south. With the European Commission in Brussels, the break-up would have EU-wide ramifications.

Independence movements are riding high elsewhere on the continent. At nationalist gatherings from Edinburgh to Barcelona over the last 18 months, I have met gaggles of people carrying the Venetian flag. Last year, 89 per cent of Venetians voted for independence in an online petition.

Spain’s highest court ruled that the Catalan vote in November was unconstitutional, not surprisingly.

Elsewhere in Spain, in a negative development for Podemos, the Catalan Ciudadanos party is rising rapidly. The anti-independence party has already polled at over 18% by some tallies.

As the chances of Grexit recede, will Brexit be the new focus for the EU?

Lithuanians are worried Putin will turn his annexing eye to the Baltics next.  A very interesting Foreign Affairs article explains. The government has diversified energy dependency away from Russia and is attempting to bring back conscription.  Here’s a more in-depth take.

Is autonomous Somaliland making any progress towards formal independence?  Officials are looking to capitalize on its relative stability by attracting tourists.

China is staying busy in the South China Sea.

Rand Paul boldly calls for a Kurdish state.

Secessionist support is enough to get you arrested in Malaysia.

Honduran ZEDEs, debated.

*****

Patri Friedman likens progressivism to the second law of thermodynamics, which is not a complement:

One of the things life has taught me this decade is the importance of exclusion and boundaries, which are highly relevant to this metaphor. A thermodynamic system with poor borders (less insulation), will have greater thermal conductivity. It may do more work initially, but it will also move at maximum speed towards that final resting state where all energy is evenly distributed. Such a state is peaceful in precisely the same way as death; for without flows of energy, there can be no life (in vivo or in silico – as no computation is possible). I suppose those who think human extinction is fair or just will consider this the state of ultimate fairness. I don’t particularly care for that final solution.

So if you even care about life existing – let alone the infinite diversity possible therein – then (contra Caplan), boundaries (such as national borders) are an absolute necessity. No differences, no energy flow, no (thermodynamic) work, no life. As in the stars, so on the earth: romance flows from polarity; trade from comparative advantage; thermodynamic work from heat differences; evolution from variation; economic competition from competing alternatives. All progress is driven by differences; so to erase differences is (counter-eponymously) to end progress.

Can devolving more power to major cities save fragile states?  The case of Nigeria.

Will Venezuela be the next Ukraine?

Tyler Cowen on where to head if you’d like to vote with your feet.

Status quo bias as the main barrier to border flexibility.

(Image source)

6254347469_97757ec25a_o

On borders, status quo bias doesn’t count

Randomly poll American citizens if there are any U.S. states that they believe should combine. You aren’t going to field many offers. Next ask them if there are any states they’d prefer to see broken up. Suggestions are, again, likely to be few and far between. How about states that should see their borders re-drawn? I predict crickets.

The implication is that things are not just O.K., but best the way they are. Not only is fifty the right number of states, but the current layout of those fifty is also the right layout. We are supposed to believe that there can be no materially better outcome from any form of action whatsoever.

Think about that for a second. What is the likelihood that this view is actually correct, that today’s state borders have it just about perfect. I would offer that it’s pretty pretty pretty low.

The biggest driver of your lackluster hypothetical poll responses probably won’t be reason or logic either, but inertia, or more specifically, status quo bias. Not to be confused with a formulated argument that favors the current state of affairs in the end, this bias manifests itself in the form of no particular argument at all.  Change is inherently bad according to this preference.  You ask somebody “why?” and they respond “just because.” There is some incomplete information here to be sure, as people might respond more (or less) favorably if they were properly informed. Yet the point stands.

For whatever reason, talk of changing borders in any capacity seems to be an uber-trigger for status quo bias in mainstream American politics. It springs forth with staggering speed and force.   Set against an increasingly polarized political landscape, the bipartisan nature of the condemnation is especially impressive, indeed, few issues match it.

Nevertheless, the colonies cut loose their British shackles a mere 240 years or so ago and continued to draw (and re-draw) more borders than a cartographer over the next century and a half. If it strikes you as strange that such unanimous agreement on current borders grew up against this historical backdrop, then I think you might be on to something.

As an example, the state of California happens to be really big. Clocking in at just under forty million inhabitants makes it the most populous U.S. state by a healthy margin. It has over ½ the population of Turkey, is on par with Poland, and eclipses Canada. You can’t drive its north-south length without blocking out at least twelve hours from your schedule.

Pristine governance however, doesn’t seem to be its strong suit. The Golden State came in at 30th in the most recent 24/7 Wall Street survey of the best and worst-run states, up from 2013’s last place finish. Cali sports a solid 7.0% unemployment rate as of December according to BLS, which is good for 49th in the country. It ranks 35th in terms of poverty rates and dead-last when geographically adjusted. This is hardly a bulletproof case for carving up California like a piece of meat, but it seems like a damn good start.  Centralization’s downsides become more apparent when viewed through the lens of scale.

Yet there are assuredly reasonable arguments to the contrary.  Perhaps even winning arguments.  So let’s hear them.   Philosophical, economic, cultural, what have you: bring them all out. But whatever you do, ye lover of border inertia, do not write off those with arguments while bringing none of your own. Do not marginalize the issue by invoking terms like “radical” and “dangerous” while falling back on an unconscious cognitive error. In reality, there is perhaps nothing more dangerous than the view that if X exists then X is the best we can do, supported by no critical thought at all. So leave the status quo bias at the door; otherwise, it’s always open.

(Image source)

Secession lagniappe

Sorry for the long break since the last one of these, I just don’t really have the time to do them weekly, so here’s a Hail Mary request. If there is anyone out there who would be interested in doing a secession link round-up weekly, I’d love to hand it over. Ideally it would remain fairly long, with a good mix of news links, more idea-driven content, images, and videos, collected from around the web. I have a subsection of RSS feeds and Google alerts for the purpose and could get you started, though nothing would make me happier than for someone to make this project their own. Email us if you’re interested at [email protected]

Reason has a new video on the State of Jefferson:

With the feds grabbing Jeffersonian land right and left — with the support of city-slicker California legislators — who can blame them for wanting to take matters into their own hands? Related book recommendation h/t JJ

Bill Gertz reports the Chinese are very interested in the Hawaiian restoration movement:

Chinese threats to back several groups of Hawaiian independence activists who want to restore the islands’ constitutional monarchy, ousted in a U.S.-backed coup over a century ago, has raised concerns that military facilities on the strategic central Pacific archipelago are threatened at a time when the Obama administration is engaged in a major shift toward Asia as part of its military and diplomatic rebalance.

Michael Pillsbury, a Pentagon consultant and author of the recent book 100 Year Marathon, said Chinese military hawks, known as “ying pai,” told him they are ready to provide arms to Hawaiian independence activists in retaliation for U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. …

“A favorite comparison the ying pai has made to me is ‘How would the Pentagon like it if we provide arms to our friends in Hawaiian independence movement?’” he said. “I was incredulous because I had never heard of such a movement in Hawaii, but, after checking I met a few of them.”

Pillsbury said Chinese backing for the independence movement would be a concern. Some U.S. archival material shows U.S. authorities acted on their own in the 1898 annexation, he said, something Congress later investigated.

Let the record show that threats of Chinese support in no way alter this blog’s position in favor of Hawaiian restoration.

Spokane and the Tri-Cities are tired of the tyranny of Olympia and Seattle. Local paper endorses a split.

Mike Vanderboegh on the steps of the WA state capitol raising hell:

Ron Paul’s not shutting up

More talk about a “Third Reconstruction”

Anti-frackers threaten a lefty version of secession in Mora County, New Mexico

*****

Definitely don’t miss First Things’ symposium on American Christianity. Here’s the first essay, and Rod Dreher’s response

Went to an excellent talk at the National Interest last week by Lord Lothian on the legacy of colonial borders, here’s their write-up of his remarks

The New Inquiry on neoreaction and the occult

Tom Woods’s recent secession speech

Adam Gurri on trust in democracies:

One problem that will not go away is this: we live in a time in which numerous rival and incommensurable narratives flourish. These narratives are tied up in membership in particular communities, and they often play a part in defining people’s identities as well as their sense of purpose. The present state of things can be traced largely to the spread of the Internet and the media of the late twentieth century. The thread goes back further still, to the invention of the printing press, and the subsequent beginnings of mass literacy, and the Reformation.

Modern pluralism writ large, and liberal democracy, grew in the soil of this turmoil. But how it came about is less important than the simple fact that this conflict of visions cannot be done away with; it is and will remain the reality on the ground. This means that a democratic government will be responsive to at least some constituents who subscribe to a narrative that you may find repulsive. Similarly, it will be responsive to the constituents who share your narrative, which others may find repulsive. This is the gap at the heart of democracy, the one so many go mad trying to fill.If you let this gap define your entire view of democracy, or even a particular democracy, you will inevitably fall into pessimism and cynicism. This attitude is pervasive right now; we live in a time when negation has replaced aspiration as the primary driver of political activism. No small part of the problem comes from aspirations that demanded too much too quickly and for too little. Tired of seeing such cosmic demands disappointed, the public tips increasingly towardsopen revolt.

Rosenberg on Chaitgate:

For all I tend to find Chait’s vision of liberalism rather crabbed, there’s something idealistic about his conviction that reasonable debate will prevail promptly against the intransigence of history, without the added spurs of radicalism and intemperate language and positions. The current battles in certain sectors of the left have real costs in burned-out activists and alienated potential allies. But Chait is going to need better evidence if he wants to argue that what’s nice is a better, faster route to what’s right.

 *****

National Review on a “Singapore-style city state” for white South Africans. Punch line: Rich Lowry, my favorite young adult fiction author, wrote a Jaffaite biography of Lincoln and had a recent column going after campus “secessionists”

Grannies for Sarawak secession

Czech mayor floats secession if mining plans go forward in his town

Secession may be the best solution to Yemen crisis

How cantonization can save Israel

Ryukyu/Okinawan independence movement gaining steam (it’s a fair bet the Chinese are watching this one closely too)

Phnom Penh monastery ‘secedes‘ from the CPP:

Am Sam Ath, technical supervisor for rights group Licadho, also said that the city was scrutinizing the pagoda now—some 17 years after it was established—because the pagoda was supporting protesters, and not because of the recent murder.

He scoffed at the city spokesman’s suggestion that a secessionist movement was brewing there.

“They cannot use the word ‘secession’ for the pagoda; it is a serious word,” Mr. Sam Ath said. “Secession means the pagoda wants to separate from the state. But how can they separate when the monks have no weapons?”

Mr. Sam Ath said the new committee was further proof that the government feared losing control of the monkhood.

The BJP loses Delhi

Tobago devolution

Fiji to remove Union Jack from flag

Strong support for South Tyrol-Austria unification; Breton unification

Interesting interview with Birgitta Jonsdottir

Maori sovereignty dispute

Mozambique opposition party to submit secession proposal

Norks persuade Cambodia to ban “The Interview”

Free West Papua!

The future evolution of proprietary cities

We live in the era of urbanization.  Currently 54% of the World’s population lives in cities, up from 34% in 1960.  Such urbanization combined with political decentralization has led to the increasing importance of cities.  Cities have been inserting themselves into conversations which earlier only included nation states.

With that in mind I would like to examine the potential growth path of proprietary cities, cities where the land on which the city is built is owned by a single proprietor.  Such cities offer two advantages.  The first is better administration.  Many developing countries are riddled with corruption.  New cities can start with a blank slate in such areas as education and public safety, escaping often dysfunctional government bureaucracies.  The second is institutional change.  Proprietary cities can offer an island where there exists rule of law and property rights protections in countries that sorely need them.

So, why would a country offer a private developer institutional autonomy?  There are a number of reasons.  The private developer could show how increased economic activity would generate more taxes.  The private developer could guarantee the creation of a certain amount of jobs.  The private developer could ensure a certain amount of investment, alleviating the need of the state to build infrastructure.  Perhaps the state realizes territorial change is far easier than country wide institutional change.

Regardless of the reason why proprietary cities are spreading, the fact remains they are spreading.  However, proprietary cities are spreading under different institutional arrangements with their host states.   There are three categories of such arrangements.  First, some are being built as joint ventures with the host state.  Second, other proprietary cities have contractual arrangements with the host state.  Lastly, some host states create a legal framework for the creation of competing proprietary cities.

A public private venture, like King Abdullah Economic City in Saudi Arabia, has several advantages.  First, governments typically have deeper pockets than private developers.  This allows greater initial investment.  Second, government involvement in the project could allow for greater institutional autonomy as the city is not entirely private, diminishing potential fears about a corporatist dystopia.  The downside is that greater government involvement means greater government involvement.  This will likely slow down any project with bureaucratic delays, as well as increasing the likelihood of further government intervention in the future.

While I do not expect public private ventures for proprietary cities will go away, they will not be the dominant form of proprietary cities either.  They will likely occupy a middle ground, used by corrupt governments to showcase a big project as well as to hand out favors to politically connected cronies.

Honduras has taken the furthest step in creating a legal framework for the creation of proprietary cities with ZEDEs.  While not proprietary cities, ZEDEs will be run by a technical secretary appointed by a government established committee, they do come close.  The ZEDE law allows for the creation of numerous competing zones.  Different developers can try different strategies to attract residents, the best strategies winning.

If Honduras sees success with the ZEDEs, similar laws will likely multiply throughout Central America.  Successful ZEDEs being copied along with the law.  It is possible other parts of the world, Africa for example, could notice the ZEDEs and copy them.  However, ultimately I am skeptical ZEDE style laws will grow beyond Central America.  Drafting such laws so as not to be corrupted by the political process is extremely difficult and there is no interest group which would push for the passage of such laws.

The most promising long term strategy, but likely the most difficult short term, is proprietary cities having exclusive contracts with their host states.  A city developer could draw up a contract and offer it to several different governments, promising increased tax revenue and the creation of new jobs.  The developer in return would ask for a degree of institutional autonomy to help the city flourish.  The main stumbling block is there does not exist any developer with enough experience or expertise to credibly offer such a contract.

However, as proprietary cities achieve success in other areas, such as Honduras, the skills necessary to create such a contract and credibly offer it will emerge.  Companies investing in ZEDEs and similar autonomous zones will begin to acquire the skills necessary for large scale expansion.  Eventually, private companies will competently be able to offer hundreds of millions to billions of dollar investments in new cities.  Such potential investments will give them strong bargaining power in asking for institutional autonomy.

Proprietary cities are likely to continue to compete with traditional city governments.  The success of proprietary cities will depend on the degree of institutional autonomy they obtain from host countries which in turn will depend on the mechanism by which they are able to exist in the host country.