You can't found Lubeck without Henry the Lion clearing away the raiders. The solution has to be at least partially military, and that raises a big problem with legitimacy. States are seen as the only legitimate owners of armies, and then only inasmuch as they don't attack each other unprovoked. I like the idea of a sponsor state--that's a good compromise on the legitimacy front. But the reaction he got in Madagascar underscores that it might not be good enough.

The problem is partly the lack of space in which to experiment. On the internet, you can simply create a new site--draft your own rules, draw up whatever security measures you like to enforce them--and ask the world to come if they find that appealing. You don't need anyone else's territory, you can just make something new and experimental. People naturally vote with their feet, and the result is pretty good.

In the real world, that's much harder to do. You cannot simply draft a constitution, enlist a private army and police force, break ground, and invite the world. The ground is already claimed. Nobody likes private armies.

That's too bad. As the article notes, reform and revolution are a lot harder than simply building something new. If nations could simply experiment the way web sites do, if people could easily vote with their feet, we might have gotten government better figured out by now.