What are other samples of states/provinces/governments that are governed like private companies now?

Question

Are there any variants of capitalism that treat states themselves like some form of corporation?

In that question, someone asks if there are states that's governed like corporation.

Notable samples are

EIC (East Indian Companies), and VOC (Dutch corporation).

The 2 companies are actually very successful. VOC captured what is now Indonesia and EIC captured India and Pakistan.

Notice, that this happens even if both corporations have to compete and fight against many many neighborhing kingdoms.

There are tens, even hundreds of kingdoms in Indonesia and India. Yet, most cannot unite such large area. Yet, governments run as corporation can.

Obviously the people suffer. However, it's arguable whether the people suffer under EIC and VOC more than they would have been under their regular kingdom.

I wonder whether there are companies like EIC and VOC now?

In particular I want something that's

1. Small enough. So people that don't like it can go to another
2. The purpose of the state/cities/local government is to maximize profit.
3. Have "owners" or main beneficiaries that are like corporation. Democracies have citizenship, however, the ownership is not like shares. Citizens with 40 children, for example, will have 40 shares. I want a sample of local governments where shares have to be inherited. Monarchy is fine. So Dubai and Qatar sort of works too. And they're both prosperous. Any other samples?
4. It doesn't do things not "capitalistic". Things like defrauding the people, or invading other countries non con-sensually. So things like Mongol Empire, and most monarchy doesn't count in ancient time doesn't count.
5. If possible, I prefer that, like corporations, the state/cities/local governments are protected by some bigger state. Typical corporations can also be looted. If they are looted, they just call the "cops" kind of thing. So Dubai doesn't really count because Dubai don't call the cop if their king is deposed through coup.
6. Bonus: Have IPO so we can buy the shares and know the corporate valuation.

Notice, all those 6 is probably non existence now. If not, please tell me something close.

Some samples I can think off

1. Any protectorate now? A protectorate would work. However, is there any?
2. States in US is sort of like that. However, their citizens vote instead of shareholders. Also states have far less autonomy. The states, for example, cannot build church. A privatized state can build church. If it attracts certain tax payers, why not.

3. Dubai and Qatar can work. But it's too sovereign.

4. Something like EIC and VOC but much smaller. That way, tax payers that do not like the state's rule can go somewhere else.

5. The state get revenue mainly through consent rather than force. So they do things that make tax payers want to come instead of making sure tax payers can't go.

Answer 1

You want something like The Reedy Creek Improvement District, which proudly boasts that it is a unique, one-of-a-kind model where business and government effectively work as partners to resolve problems neither could solve on their own. "The District" as it is sometimes called, was created by a special act of the Florida Legislature in 1967 and manages fire and emergency medical services, roads, water management, waste management, and power generation for 25,000 acres of land within the district's boundaries which lies within Orange and Osceola Counties. The district is governed by its 5-member board which is elected by the land owning residents of the District and most of its operations are in support of the District's economic improvement with respect to the tourist industry.

Of course, you might know this area better by the most famous branch of the 19 corporate landowners that reside within their bounds: Walt Disney World (insert jokes about the fusion of Government and Corporations resulting in the Happiest Place On Earth).

And yes, you can even live on Disney World Property (there are a few small neighborhoods behind the Magic Kingdom employee parking lots... and they can be accessed from non-marked entrances so the children don't have to see the behind the magic areas... however, most residents are Disney Employees of some stripes.).

It meets your criteria:

It is small, with only a few residents and 19 property holders, covers 38 sq miles, and has a total of 39 individual residents.

Its purposes are to maximize its profits, namely tourism based Walt Disney World Resort Properties (it was originally gather to be a functional major planned city).

Its owners are corporations and all residents eligible for voting for its local government are employees of Walt Disney Co.

Number 4 gets tricky, as they didn't identify that it was Disney per se at the time they successfully lobbied the law to be passed giving them the freedoms they enjoy, but they did say that they were a bunch of corporations that owned the land and wanted these exemptions for purposes of speedier construction (Disney today only responds to FL government through paying property taxes and Elevator inspections). It was all perfectly legal, the land was purchased at fair market prices from the residents (such as there were... it was mostly empty swamp in the 60s) and the law did grant them it's governance.

It does receive some protections from Florida Government and is policed by the two county police departments and state police.

And as an added bonus, Walt Disney does trade on U.S. stock markets and has 2018 revenue of $59 Billion alone.

Sure it's 1980s-style MegaCorp Government... but it's just a Mickey Mouse operation.

Answer 2

Although some corporations have private security, they don’t have the same scale as a navy, army and airforce; together with their training establishments and military bases.

Although some corporations have various kinds of corporate healthcare, they don’t have the same scale as say, universal healthcare in social democracies, or even further left, such as communist Cuba, from doctors to hospitals to medical research facilities.

And although some corporations have corporate welfare they don’t have the same kind of universal welfare as say the best do, for impoverished but aspiring families, some of which may take several generations to lift themselves out of poverty: for every glamourous rags-to-riches story there are ten thousand other stories that are still worth hearing but we never get to hear them. Try reading Steinbecks Grapes of Wrath, for the kind of story that simply doesn’t get heard today.

In other words corporations simply do not have the scale. The largest of them still have fewer employees than a small town or city. And just as importantly, they do not have the same duties and obligations that comes with real power, power that is a accountable.

It might be argued that shareholders in an corporation have the same kinds of rights as say the voting population of a nation. But I don’t think so, when’s the last time there was a shareholder revolution that threw out a corrupt leadership? When that sort of things happens with revolutions all the time ... that’s why people have them ... and will keep on having them until they get want they want.

Answer 3

Any dictatorship, like North Korea, functions like a privately-owned non-traded country; the dictator is the CEO, the generals are the executives, managers are armed, and then the employees that do the work they're told to do. Very inefficient.

But if I ironman your question, are you asking about a country where governance is more of a market mechanism? That would be capitonationalism. Capitonationalism is where everyone in a country becomes a shareholder of their government; the government becomes a corporation with 100% of the residents being part-owners. The trick is that these shares are buyable/sellable on the market for any agreed-upon price. This might sound like the end of the soviet union where every citizen received resellable shares of the means of production, but capitonationalism is not that. The citizens are receiving shares of the government, not the means of production.

The other trick is that these new shareholders would not be allowed to sell all of their nationshares. They would have to lock up some minimum amount if they want to stay in the country. The locked up portion would only be unlocked upon proof of emmigration. Another trick is to mandate that a given citizen's private wealth may not exceed said citizen's nationshare wealth. This regulation makes sure everyone is always financially aligned with the rest of the shareholders.

What happens afterwards is up to the shareholders. Do they nationalize all productive capital? Or do they impose a mere 1% self-assessed annual wealth tax? Do they cut government spending down to bare minimum to pay out huge cash dividends to all shareholders? Or do they institute public institutions to provide services to shareholders, a sort of service dividend? Do the shareholders invite anyone to buy their nationshares on the market to increase the nationshare market value? Or do they have a more strict investor pool?