Again your beef is that there isn't local representation. There isn't some law of the universe that a charter city can't allow the locals to influence policy of the guarantor. You have an issue that government doesn't always work the way you want it, and it's a valid concern that governments often (if not always) are bad for the locals.

You can't point at North Korea and say "Look, when you have a nation-state everyone ends up with essentially zero influence by common locals." But this is essentially what you're doing with charter cities.

>foreign guarantor

Better terminology would be 'formerly foreign guarantor.' They are domestic to the charter city.

My beef is with a system that allows foreign guarantors.

> Better terminology would be 'formerly foreign guarantor.' They are domestic to the charter city.

Do they surrender their home country nationality? If not...

Understood

>No my issue is with foreign controlled exclaves which can exert disproportionate influence on the locals without being accountable to the locals whose lives they control.

It's interesting that I could swap "foreign controlled exclaves' with 'federal government' here and suddenly many would be outraged. Your argument fits in pretty neatly with anti-federalism and anti- other structures that serve to dilute the power of locals.

It's a valid point to be concerned about loss of local power. I'm skeptical that there is any practical difference here for exploitations of locals (charter-city vs non-charter-city) other than an OPPORTUNITY for competing governments models to prove themselves in a way that lets those in a constrained geographic area compare many governance models to see which works. I can see using charter cities to INCREASE local power, by creating a 'foreign guarantor' that is actually a representation of the locals, ousting much federal power.