City-States Without Limits

[PAF]

Unlimited Hangout
by Iain Davis
October 9, 2025

A powerful group of Silicon Valley oligarchs are using the Trump administration to push for the construction of privatized city-states in the US. Their interests are aligned with a global network of oligarchs who want to move away from the global governance of nation-states to the global governance of an international network of city-states. The intention is for the city-states to form a “patchwork” of realms overseen by a regional balance of power global governance system: the Multipolar World Order.​

New city-states—some being constructed from scratch and others being seeded into existing cities—go by many names. In the US, President Donald Trump has called them “Freedom Cities.” The United Nations refers to them as “human settlements,” the C40 Cities Network calls them “15 minute cities,” The Global Parliament of Mayors sometimes refers to them as “resilient cities,” and the Charter Cities Institute calls them, unsurprisingly, “charter cities.”

But whatever they are called, they have a defined set of common characteristics. All of these emerging city-states are centrally planned and designed to maximise the use of technology. Some are already close to becoming completed “smart cities.” Many of these new city-states, as yet undeclared, have been given independent jurisdiction with varying degrees of autonomy from the nation-states in which they reside.

Perhaps their most striking shared trait is their universal commitment to implement global governance policy initiatives. To this end, many nascent city-states have already joined city-based global governance networks.

Their development is being driven by a Public-Private Partnership investment strategy that is encouraged and supported at the global governance level. Some are currently being built in so called “Special Economic Zones” (SEZs). Other announced city-state developments, such as Freedom Cities in the US, bear all the hallmarks of SEZs. The global proliferation of Special Economic Zones, most notably those with “residential spaces,” is rapidly expanding the potential locations for yet more city-state projects. There are already thousands.

Conspicuous philosophical and political theories, and the city-state landscape forming before our eyes, redefines our concept of global governance. The notion of phasing out the purported “sovereignty” of nation-states is now firmly embedded in the strategies to develop a new kind of intergovernmental structure. One in which the city predominates. The concept of a worldwide network of privatized, corporate city-state “kingdoms” has been embraced and is viewed as the best and most expedient method both for enslaving humanity to a centralised digital surveillance and behavioural control grid, and for establishing firm Global Governance.


Gov-Corp Technates

In a previous two-part investigation for Unlimited Hangout—The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate Part 1 and Part 2—we explored the so-called philosophy of the Dark Enlightenment and the sociopolitical theory of Technocracy. We saw how these two concepts overlap and witnessed how they have captured the imaginations of a group of Silicon Valley oligarchs—Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Marc Andreessen, etc.,—who have effectively seized control of the Trump administration. It is recommended that you read those essays to get a perspective on some of the concepts we will expand on here.

.
.


Continue reading:

City-States Without Limits – Part 1

A powerful group of Silicon Valley oligarchs are using the Trump administration to push for the construction of privatized city-states in the US. Their interests are aligned with a global network of oligarchs who want to move away from the global governance of nation-states to the global...

unlimitedhangout.com

 

[TheTexan]

All of these emerging city-states are centrally planned

Is that supposed to be inherently a bad thing?

Many of these new city-states, as yet undeclared, have been given independent jurisdiction with varying degrees of autonomy from the nation-states in which they reside.

Good

---

 

[TheTexan]

Perhaps their most striking shared trait is their universal commitment to implement global governance policy initiatives. To this end, many nascent city-states have already joined city-based global governance networks.

Like what?

The concept of a worldwide network of privatized, corporate city-state “kingdoms”

Oh no, not privatized kingdoms! Teh slavery

 

[acptulsa]

Is that supposed to be inherently a bad thing?

No, but it generally is. Humans always assume they can come up with a plan that'll be superior to letting everyone do their own thing, but it's seldom true.

 

[TheTexan]

No, but it generally is. Humans always assume they can come up with a plan that'll be superior to letting everyone do their own thing, but it's seldom true.

It's true probably about as often as someone is actually as smart as they think they are, which is about 1 in 100.

But at the same time, this is where greatness happens.

 

[nikcers]

The "Multipolar World Order" ended up floundering. Multipolar systems are hard.

Russia declared the era of a "Multipolar World Order" when they invaded Ukraine. They said when they're finished Ukraine won't exist and Washington will be kicked out of the region.

Iran declared the era of a "Multipolar World Order" when they ramped up their nuclear program. They said when they're finished Israel won't exist and Washington will be kicked out of the region.

China declared the era of a "Multipolar World Order" when they launched a trade war. They said when they're finished China will take Taiwan without firing a shot and Washington will be kicked out of the region.

Washington hasn't even gone anywhere. What a bunch of losers. They will need to add an L to the BRICS moniker.

 

[acptulsa]

There goes the neighborhood again.

 

[nikcers]

There goes the neighborhood again.

The federal government just isn't going to allow for unincorporated states inside the United States mainland.

The shut down of the federal government isn't the end of federalism.

The USA will continue on indefinitely in spite of it all. They came for the king and they missed.

 

[PAF]

Unlimited Hangout
by Iain Davis
October 16, 2025


In Part 1, we discussed the NRx technocrats’ ideas and how they have influenced the city-state model that seeks to capitalise on the global proliferation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). We examined the role of functional oligarchies in this endeavor. In Part 2, we look at how that city-state model manifests internationally and what it implies, not just for global governance structures, but for humanity.

In Part 1, we explored the ideology that has been adopted by a powerful group of NRx technocrat-oligarchs and how their proposals align with the interests of their international oligarch partners. We discussed the venture capital impact investment strategy the NRx technocrats call “accelerationism” and how governments are actually “functional oligarchies.”

The model of “government” the NRx technocrats propose is unlike anything we are currently familiar with. It is much more akin to the kind of authoritarian dictatorships exercised by the feudal monarchs of Medieval Europe. These gov-corp Technates, as envisaged, effectively amount to dictatorial city-states under the direct control of oligarchs.

The NRx technocrats seek to break nation-states apart into technologically governed “enclaves” (gov-corp Technates). These “realms” will form an international “Patchwork,” with each enclave or “network archipelago” represented as a digital node, almost certainly on a single, overarching blockchain or “unified ledger.” The digital access permissions to the node, which serves as the digital twin for the physical realm of the city-state “enclave,” will be controlled by the “founder” or their selected administrators of the realm. This forms a gov-corp Technate ruled by a CEO King (oligarch) where “nothing officially exists” unless it is represented digitally on the realm’s ledger (blockchain).

The citizens of the realm are customers of the sovereign corporation (sovcorp) that rules the gov-corp Technate. The customers will have no individual sovereignty unless they purchase it from the “founder.” All value is digital in the realm. The life of your “digital twin,” monitored through the requirement to use digital ID, seamlessly links a customer’s offline life to that of their online digital twin.

By controlling the programmable digital currency allotted to the customer’s digital twin, via their digital ID, any misbehaviour can be punished by the founder or their delegated system administrators. For example, by freezing “their deposits” or locking people “out of all doors for a time period as a punishment.” There are no means of recourse in a gov-corp Technate. The only option open to the persecuted customer is to flee, if they have the means.

We also discussed how governments around the world have already started carving out nascent gov-corp Technates in the form of thousands of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). Some of which, such as Shenzhen in China, have already been established as de facto city-states with their own increasingly independent jurisdictions and embryonic city-state governments.

At the heart of this effort to create a global patchwork of city-states are the NRx technocrats, perhaps most notably Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen in the US, and venture capital firms like NeWay Capital and Pronomos Capital. But they are far from alone. The NRx technocrat network is global and, at the highest governmental and intergovernmental level, the hope is to bring about the global governance of a patchwork of city-state gov-corp Technates.

Smart-City-States Without Limits​

NRx technocrats want to create a global “patchwork” of digital surveillance societies where “nothing officially exists unless it’s on-chain.” All value is digital and the private founder, by virtues of the supreme sovereignty they have purchased with their investment, control their private fiefdoms as CEO “kings” of the ruling corporations.

.
.
.
.

Continue to full article:

City-States Without Limits – Part 2

In Part 1, we discussed the NRx technocrats’ ideas and how they have influenced the city-state model that seeks to capitalise on the global proliferation of Special Economic Zones (SEZs). We examined the role of functional oligarchies in this endeavor. In Part 2, we look at how that city-state...

unlimitedhangout.com

City-States Without Limits – Part 1​

 

[TheTexan]

Sounds fine to me but then again I support private property rights and if these billionaires want to buy or build their own personal centrally planned city who am I to say no.

Some of which, such as Shenzhen in China, have already been established as de facto city-states with their own increasingly independent jurisdictions and embryonic city-state governments.

Increasingly independent jurisdictions? Good

 

[TheTexan]

The model of “government” the NRx technocrats propose is unlike anything we are currently familiar with. It is much more akin to the kind of authoritarian dictatorships exercised by the feudal monarchs of Medieval Europe.

The author of the article you posted calls the feudal system "oppressive dictatorship". The below authors however would argue the point that the feudal system could be considered the birthplace of the concepts we now call liberty and capitalism.

Rothbard - An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought: Volume I (link)

The High Middle Ages were established by the commercial revolution of the eleventh to thirteenth centuries, in which trade, production and finance flourished, living standards rose markedly, and the institutions of commercial capitalism developed in western Europe. With the advent of economic growth and prosperity, canon and Roman law, learning and social thought, also began to flourish once again.

Ralph Raico - The European Miracle (link)

Instead of experiencing the hegemony of a universal empire, Europe developed into a mosaic of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, ecclesiastical domains, and other political entities.

Within this system, it was highly imprudent for any prince to attempt to infringe property rights in the manner customary elsewhere in the world. In constant rivalry with one another, princes found that outright expropriations, confiscatory taxation, and the blocking of trade did not go unpunished. The punishment was to be compelled to witness the relative economic progress of one’s rivals, often through the movement of capital, and capitalists, to neighboring realms. The possibility of “exit,” facilitated by geographical compactness and, especially, by cultural affinity, acted to transform the state into a “constrained predator” (Anderson 1991, 58).

Hoppe - From Aristocracy to Monarchy to Democracy (link)

Only this much on the allegedly “dark” age of feudalism and in support of my assertion that the Middle Ages can serve as a rough historical example of what I have just described as a natural order. Feudal lords and kings could only “tax” with the consent of the taxed, and on his own land, every free man was as much of a sovereign, i.e., the ultimate decision maker, as the feudal king was on his. (Texan - doesn't sound very oppressive to me)

 

[TheTexan]

Bring back the feudal system

 

[TheTexan]

The NRx technocrat network is global and, at the highest governmental and intergovernmental level, the hope is to bring about the global governance of a patchwork of city-state gov-corp Technates.

The author made a similar claim in Part 1. I'm sure he's probably right but I don't see anything specifically mentioned in these articles and a brief search to find "global governance" efforts for these city states came up pretty much empty.

 

[PAF]

Individualism and Self-Determination in the American Tradition | Mises Institute

What do we mean by “individualism” in the American tradition? It is not separatist or atomistic, but rather freedom from having state actors running one’s

mises.org

 

[TheTexan]

Individualism and Self-Determination in the American Tradition | Mises Institute

What do we mean by “individualism” in the American tradition? It is not separatist or atomistic, but rather freedom from having state actors running one’s

mises.org

Not 100% sure how that's intended to relate to this thread, but it's a good article nonetheless

 

[PAF]

Not 100% sure how that's intended to relate to this thread, but it's a good article nonetheless

Public-Private Partnerships/State Sponsored City-States

Of course you are free to be part of that, or not, but are you really free to not, and if/once everything is?

 

[TheTexan]

Of course you are free to be part of that, or not, but are you really free to not, and if/once everything is?

More than we are now, surely

From the article you posted:

To call this right of self-determination the “right of self-determination of nations” is to misunderstand it. It is not the right of self-determination of a delimited national unit, but the right of the inhabitants of every territory to decide on the state to which they belong.

 

[PAF]

More than we are now, surely

From the article you posted:

It's like you're really, really hungry and don't have an ounce of energy to walk across the garden and Eve gives/barters/sells you a Red Delicious.

I don't want the Devil and his beautiful ambassador tempting me into his flavor of government without limits even if I'm hungry.

 

[PAF]

@TheTexan

This discusses 2 different city-states and technocracy:

...the limits of technocratic planning and the enduring power of freedom. Cheang does not deny that Singapore achieved remarkable success, but he warns that this success came at a cost: diminished creativity, limited innovation, and a citizenry conditioned to look to the state for initiative.

The Economic Success of Singapore and Hong Kong | Mises Institute

While it is tempting to see the economic success of Singapore and Hong Kong as similar, there really are stark differences between them. Hong Kong has developed

mises.org

 

[TheTexan]

@TheTexan

This discusses 2 different city-states and technocracy:

The Economic Success of Singapore and Hong Kong | Mises Institute

While it is tempting to see the economic success of Singapore and Hong Kong as similar, there really are stark differences between them. Hong Kong has developed

mises.org

Relative to most of their peers in the world, I would say both Singapore and Hong Kong did pretty well for themselves. Even if Hong Kong did slightly better. Unfortunately, as China increasingly exerts its control over Hong Kong, it's unlikely their level of prosperity will continue.

And yea Singapore and Hong Kong are authoritarian in many regards. But that's okay with me. Freedom of movement between city states means that there are limits to how authoritarian they can be.

And while I'm frequently an advocate of closed borders and closed trade, that model changes with city states. City states usually depend on free trade and free movement in order to thrive.