Devin Finbarr has an excellent post up; Hackertopia: Creating a City as a Startup. This is not surprising. What's interesting is that Hackertopia is a more or less concrete idea for instantiating some reactionary/formalist ideas in the real world.
I like the idea. I think that if it could be created, it would be a nice place to live. The biggest problem I see with the proposal is that while the founders might be able to get out from under some state regulation and taxes, they're not going to be able to escape the fed. And while state regulations and taxes can be add to the burden of starting businesses, creating wealth, or just living your life - they are just the cherry on top of the Everest-sized ice cream sundae that is the Federal Government.
Federal taxes will weigh down every effort of the citizens of Hackertopia. Environmental impact statements and OSHA regulations will slow and hinder every business. And that's just the normal run of things. If certain elements in the government decided to not like Hackertopia, it would be far worse.
What would be needed would be a special economic zone, or the like, where existing federal regulations would not apply. And that is a highly dubious proposition, unless things get much worse.
Still and all, I could see how building a city like this would be for the good - it could at least be a place where most of the worst, localized excesses of democracy are limited. What Hackertopia most reminded me of is Precipice, a city in John Brunner's novel Shockwave Rider. It's a book well worth reading - and though the town in the novel is more of a libertarian utopia, it shares many characteristics with Devin's Hackertopia. But one of the key things that allowed Precipice to come into being is the big one, the giant earthquake that levels SF and is entirely beyond the capacity of the nation to recover from. A large swath of ruined California is effectively abandoned - a "paid avoidance zone" where the rule of the Federal government is light, because the cost of rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure is just too high. In this extra-legal zone, Precipice flourishes because it's economy and people are not warped by the heavy hand of increasingly deranged government.
While I haven't had a lot of time for writing in the last little while, I've been thinking about the wheres and whys of a reactionary experiment. Granted, we have some partial examples - Hong Kong before the takeover, Singapore, and so on. Chili under Pinochet.
It seems to me that part of the problem with the libertarian ideas that Aretae espouses - and which to a great extent I sympathise with - is that they don't take into account the monkeybrains aspect in regard to the politics. Economics - yes. But people are not comfortable professing loyalty to amorphous collectives operating for the common good. And certainly not to co-operative protection agencies and the like. The United States, and to a lesser extent other democracies, have gotten around this by creating a civic religion centered on constitution idolatry and the veneration of civic saints. This faith is failing now, and seems unlikely to recover, and certainly will not be replaced by un-coerced love for the bureaucratic state and its organs.
The idea of a monarch gives a human thing for people to latch on to, give their loyalty to, and to build community around. Providing you can get to the point where having a king seems like a good idea, and people have agreed that that particular guy is the one who should be king. A Moldbug-style neo-cameralist CEO probably wouldn't inspire that, unless it was Steve Jobs. To me, the idea of having a Calvin Coolidge sort of king - one who would not interfere in the economy, or in our lives, but would serve as a guarantor of order and prosperity; and at need a final arbiter of disputes - that would be best.