Frequently asked questions

A Free City is a self-governing territory that emphasises upholding individual rights and freedoms. It usually has a special legal status within a host state, giving it autonomy over local laws, regulations and services. Unlike business-only zones, it serves a full residential community rather than just companies.

Special Economic Zones offer businesses lower taxes and lighter regulation, but rarely have genuine regulatory autonomy or a resident population. Free Cities go further: they govern themselves and are built around the freedom and quality of life of the people who live there. SEZs can be a stepping stone toward Free Cities, but are not Free Cities in themselves.

Yes. A Free City is established through a legal agreement with its host country, which forms the basis of its special status, whether it operates as an autonomous zone inside the state or moves toward fuller independence. The host country retains sovereignty over matters like international relations and defence.

Projects at every stage exist around the world, from operational zones like Próspera and Ciudad Morazán in Honduras to communities in development and early planning. You can explore them on our interactive directory.

A Free Private City is run by a private company (a City Operator) that provides administration, security and the rule of law under a Citizen Contract, with disputes settled by independent arbitration. The Contract fixes the relationship between residents and the Operator, and limits the Operator’s power to what is written down.

In those city-states there is a government or parliament that can change the prevailing rules at virtually any time without asking residents, even to their detriment, and contrary to the very reasons most people came there. Residents are not customers but subjects, and the number of rules, and so the restrictions on freedom, grows steadily.

In a Free Private City you instead receive a contractual offer from the Operator, who is in effect a “state service provider.” The Citizen Contract spells out exactly which services it provides and what they cost you, the obligations you take on for the sake of peaceful coexistence, which legal system applies, and so on. The Operator cannot later change these terms or the amounts payable unilaterally. You have an enforceable legal claim to them, and disputes are heard before an independent arbitration court. The contract runs, possibly after a probationary period, for an indefinite term: like a long-running insurance policy you can terminate it at any time with proper notice, while the Operator can do so only in exceptional cases, such as a breach of your obligations.

The decisive difference is that the Operator, or a body elected by the majority, cannot keep arrogating more powers to itself and interfering in residents’ lives. Constitutions can be changed against the will of those affected if the necessary majorities exist; a contract can be changed only if the other party agrees. That is why the individual contract, and the legal position it gives each resident, matter so much. The aim is the greatest possible self-determination, not the greatest possible co-determination: if everyone can freely decide how to live, there is little need for bodies like parliaments, which in any case always risk being captured by interest groups or the government. Finally, every contract citizen can sue the Operator, or withhold payment, if they believe the contract is not being honoured, whereas in a constitutional system the individual usually has no standing to sue when the state performs its tasks poorly, let alone any right to withhold taxes.

The Operator is bound by the Contract, which limits its powers to a few areas, and it has submitted itself to independent dispute resolution. By virtue of its territorial monopoly on force it could in theory behave as a dictator, but most residents would then leave, and the loss of reputation would make it impossible to found successful new cities elsewhere. In this it is no different from the captain of a cruise ship on the open sea or the manager of a remote holiday resort: both could in theory act as dictators, but refrain out of commercial self-interest.

The situation is no different from international commercial law. Someone holding a judgment against a foreign state that refuses to pay has no higher executive authority to enforce it, but can try to seize that state’s assets in other countries, and much the same applies against the Operator. The Operator also has an incentive to respect such decisions and keep to the contract, because failing to do so would diminish its prospects of profit.

Arbitration courts and courts should be able to decide even novel situations by drawing on legal principles that have applied for centuries and on a balanced, reasonable weighing of interests. This is how the common law works, and the guiding principles of today’s civil-law systems still correspond to those of Roman law from over two thousand years ago. In practice, workable arrangements will often emerge in new areas of life without any court ruling or contract change, as happened with the handling of fraud in the credit-card industry. There is also the option of offering new residents different contracts from existing ones, gradually creating a new order without depriving anyone of their rights. The problem of amending contracts is nonetheless one of the weightiest objections; it is treated in chapter 15 of the book Free Private Cities.

In conventional systems the citizen is obliged to pay taxes without a corresponding right to services. In a Free Private City, service and payment stand in a direct relationship: both parties have a right to performance of the contract. The Operator can demand the agreed fee but no additional amounts, while the citizen can sue the Operator to meet its obligations, for instance to guarantee security and a functioning legal system. Anyone who becomes the victim of a crime generally has a claim for damages against the Operator.

Not at all. The estimated cost of the mandatory basic package (security and the court system) is no more than about a thousand euros a year, or a few thousand if a minimum level of social protection is added; most people should be able to afford that. Because no taxes are levied, single people starting their careers, and middle-earners generally, should be substantially better off, with the money freed up available for their own health- and pension-savings, mutual-aid memberships, and their children’s education. Free Private Cities also give businesses strong incentives to settle, which creates jobs for low- and middle-earners; and given the low charges and other advantages, why would they not live in the city too?

When people come to a Free Private City voluntarily to take a job, knowing there is no welfare state and no minimum wage, the claim of “exploitation” only holds up if you deny them the right to decide for themselves. Many do argue that most people are incapable of looking after their own interests, implicitly claiming that they themselves are better able to, and so have the right to patronise others. That is presumptuous. There is no middle way: either adults have the right to decide for themselves, or they do not.

Even so, the weak are not unprotected, because a body of civil law guards against, for example, surprising clauses in contracts. And the objection overlooks that protection of the weak, and help for the genuinely needy who cannot help themselves, can be provided without coercive state systems, and without their harmful side effects. In the end, Free Private Cities will be more social than so-called welfare states. Social security is dealt with in detail in chapter 21 of the book Free Private Cities.

In a Free Private City a culture of its own will most likely develop gradually out of the residents’ shared values, as happened in the United States. Alongside this, Free Private Cities are conceivable that are aimed at particular ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Beyond that the question must be regarded as open: Dubai and Singapore have so far managed without such means of cohesion.

The host state has a contract with the Operator that is likely to include the usual investment-protection clauses, so occupying a Free Private City would risk substantial financial claims, potentially even the seizure of the state’s assets abroad. The city will nonetheless try to prevent matters reaching that point, through a combination of public-relations work, diplomatic ties to other states, and enough defensive capability to put a price on any takeover; it can also note in good time that its highly mobile residents would quickly leave, making it an unattractive target. Few states stand a chance against great powers, and genuine sovereignty exists only insofar as the great powers permit it. Even so, even powerful states cannot occupy other territories without justification: doing so draws in other powers and can become domestically dangerous for the rulers involved. Were it otherwise, no small states would exist today.

States can only be won over to such a concept if they expect to benefit. Around city-states like Hong Kong, Singapore or Monaco, a belt of densely populated and comparatively prosperous areas has formed, whose inhabitants often work in the city-state but pay taxes to the home country. If such a development takes place in a previously structurally weak or unpopulated area, the host state can only gain. Ideally none of its laws would continue to apply; for practical and political reasons that will probably not be possible in pure form, and just how much internal autonomy a particular Free Private City has is ultimately a matter of negotiation.

There are many ways in: join the community, attend a local meetup, come to the Free Cities Conference, or follow the podcast and newsletter. See the Get Involved page for the current options.

The Foundation supports a growing network of city meetups. Check the Meetups page to find a group near you, or get in touch about starting one.

You can support the work financially, spread the ideas, or contribute your time and skills. The Get Involved page lists the ways to help.

The Foundation aims to inspire, inform and connect people to create a global market of living together. It publishes news and essays, produces The Free Cities Podcast, maintains the Free Cities Directory of projects, publishes books including the Free Private Cities whitepaper, runs the annual Free Cities Conference, and supports a worldwide community of meetups and ambassadors.

No. The Foundation is not a developer or operator. It is a connective hub for the movement, surfacing projects, ideas and people, and helping the ecosystem around Free Cities grow.