I do like how some of the larger investors still want to give the plan a shot. Albeit their methods, I think, betray the ideology - so Johnson has proven himself amoral to the philosophy and thus nobody should do business with him again, and in the anarcho vision they would collectively boycott and draft contracts with anyone they associate with to also boycott him, but really they would have to go find new land since they are acknowledging his possession of the plot.

I'm more interested in the politics in trying to approach nations to effectively take a chunk of land out of its jurisdiction. I doubt any state around today is really privy to the idea, and in this context I doubt Chile agreed to anything close to giving this town independence.

I guess it depends on where exactly they stand in the grand spectrum of libertarian-anarchism. I agree with you that it's unlikely that Chile was planning on giving this area any kind of special jurisdiction, and the impression I got from the article was that they weren't really expecting any -- they were just planning on being isolated enough that they ordinarily only had to deal with other people who were similarly politically inclined.

Plenty of libertarian types are fine with enough of a state that you can sue someone for breach of contract. I don't know whether these guys were. Maybe some are and some aren't. Just because they like Rand enough to name the place Galt's Gulch doesn't mean any or all of them were actually expecting hard-core anarchy.