Interesting. Would it be appropriate to relate the private city idea to a subscription service such as Spotify or Netflix? The citizen subscribes to a service that they believe to be worth their money. If the service is lacking, and the citizen is not pleased, the citizen will cease to pay and will move away, therefore hindering the income of the private city owner. The owner of the city (this is how your descriptions have been summed up in my head correct me if I am wrong) therefore has an incentive to provide a high quality service, at a good price. If there are multiple cities owned by different people, the price of living would be driven down due to competition.
This is very interesting to me, however I think I might still prefer a market-governed ancap society :). Upvoted...
As the subtitle of the book says:
More competition in the most important market in the world, and this market is the market of living together. So the author envisions different kind of free private cities, for different kind of people, so to refer to your analogy, if you´re not happy with Amazon Prime´s movies you go to Netflix. And you´re right, the author also thinks that with time, if investors see they can make money with those cities, and governments see the advantages of ceding territory and jurisdiction to those cities, more cities will be founded and their annual fees will get cheaper.
Right now in Honduras, the government has also not agreed 100 % to Gebel´s ideas, in a recent interview he said about 70% could be realized, but that´s still better than anything else currently in existence, so it will be similar to a Free Trade Zone, but with a bit more freedom.
Very interesting. Market controlled pricing is always the best way, and works out for everybody.