Honduras: A New Hope?

September 8th, 2014   Submitted by Anthony Caprio

ZedeIn order for a civilization to function there are certain pillars, which are required. The first pillar is security, which is needed to protect lives and property, and to provide stability. The second is laws or contracts that define behavior and resource use. The third is some form of judicial system to arbitrate the disputes that inevitably arise between individuals and groups. Zonas de Empleo y Desarollo Economico (Zone for Employment and Economic Development) or ZEDE is a project being implemented in Honduras as an attempt to create an autonomous city with a separate judicial, legal, and security system from the rest of Honduras.

For most of recorded human history subjects or citizens were provided these services by a state, which reserved a monopoly on violence for itself. The citizens of the state usually considered their rulers legitimate, whether they believed their right to rule came from God (the divine right of kings or divine rulers), or from the “just consent of the governed.”

Just like anything in life, there are some products and services which are better than others. If you can only access one provider, and you’re forbidden from using any other providers, it can be difficult to imagine that a better product or service could be out there. Imagine if while growing up your mother was terrible at cooking meat loaf. You might dislike the dish, and eat it only when nothing else is available, but let’s say you were invited to dinner at your friend’s house, and his mother made meat loaf. You try it out of respect for your host, and find to your surprise that it is delicious! You’d never had anything else to compare your mother’s meat loaf with, but now that you have you find you clearly prefer the meat loaf at your friend’s house.

Those of us in the freedom movement have a tendency to have a negative worldview. This is understandable as we see the freedoms we once enjoyed being eroded by power-hungry governments. But we have many reasons to be positive. Chief among them is the Internet. For the majority of human history most people had been confined to the territory they were born in, never realizing that there may be a better way of doing things out there. This vast network of ideas, and the incredible improvements in communication over the last two centuries has accelerated freedom, and technology faster than any government can squash them. People are realizing that there are better forms of law, security, and judicial systems than the ones they have been born under, and that there are freer jurisdictions than the ones they may be living in.

We’re seeing exciting movements like the Free State Project in New Hampshire, and the Free Province Project on Prince Edward Island. One of the most exciting of these projects is the ZEDE project in Honduras. The Honduran congress passed legislation that will allow for the creation of separate economic jurisdictions with security, legal and judicial systems that would be separate from the rest of Honduras. The ZEDE project is an attempt to create a series of autonomous zones similar to Hong Kong, Dubai, or Shanghai, which allow more freedom and market competition. The advisory board for the creation of these zones is full of Austrian school apologists. Multiple zones could be created depending on the success of the first.

Now, ZEDE is not about creating Anarcho-Capitalist jurisdictions. There is however a strong possibility that competing jurisdictions would arise. Indeed there is already talk of Home Owner’s Associations in the country using smart contracts, private arbitration, and private security. This represents a significant improvement in the feedback mechanism that states everywhere currently lack.

Even more encouraging is that El Salvador and Nicaragua are now looking at joining Honduras in implementing their own version of a ZEDE jurisdiction around the Gulf of Fonseca, which is surrounded by all three countries. The leaders of all three nations have agreed to work together to make the area a hub for investment and development, even going so far as to direct their Navies to ensure no military incidents occur in the region. This represents a huge departure from the tense stand-offs of the past between these nations over incursions into each other’s territorial waters.

Honduras is like an alcoholic that has reached rock bottom. The nation has the highest murder rate in the world, and one of the lowest per capita GDPs. The people are so poor and miserable that they are willing to send their children unaccompanied, or in the hands of strangers, thousands of miles to an uncertain life, because they are sure that it must be better than where they live. Even the politicians have become desperate enough to give up some of their power, and give markets a chance.

The project is not without its detractors. Socialist activists in the country are worried this could be another form of fascism, or neo-colonialism (and they could be right). Economist Paul Romer has withdrawn his support from the project because the Honduran government will not be partnering with the US government (which I believe speaks well for the project). Students and young people in the country are deeply skeptical of the plan because it comes from the government (can you blame them). Reason has done a great series on the progress of the movement.

I have no idea if the ZEDEs will be successful. Politicians are loath to give up power of any kind, and the recent collapse of Galt’s Gulch Chile is a sobering reminder that charlatans and incompetent people exist in the liberty movement, as well as the governments of the world. However, it’s exciting that the ideas of liberty and freedom are being widely recognized. People everywhere are looking for ways to implement these ideas. Whether it is through legislation or Agorism, we are all working toward the same goals, the right to live life as we see fit, and to be left alone in the process. I wish the project well, and if it is a success it could be the best thing any government has ever done, give up power and leave people alone.

Tags: ,

26 Responses to “Honduras: A New Hope?”

  1. HReardenNo Gravatar says:

    The British government allowed Honk Kong to function independently.

  2. VanmindNo Gravatar says:

    Such honey pots always attract the most naive of the world’s narcissists.

    “Oh, John Galt totally would have recognized me as a superman.”

    Ha, and remember: a con artist doesn’t get your money by taking away your confidence, but rather by tricking you into believing that his confidence is a mere reflection of your own eye-averting brilliance.

    Another “but rather” to ponder: don’t pretend that running away from the NWO is a way to defeat the NWO, but rather learn to laugh loudest at the mirror. The alternative is a proverbial unending quest for that fantastical Shangri La utopia (e.g. the Red Shambalah behavioralism of Mystery School Bolshevists) by which self-styled victims pretend that they can thrive far from the reach of meanies while others who are less “chosen” tackle all those outland problems.

    But then, who’s kidding whom? Obviously there’s nothing all that wrong with the world — or else Keanu Reeves and some guy in a porcelain mask would be here fighting to save everyone.

    • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

      I’m unclear as to your point. Are you saying the strong will always exploit the weak?

      And “running away” is futile but laughter is not? Can we laugh our way to freedom? Does laughter teach others to abandon their illusions? Or does it just make them feel uncomfortable around you because you don’t accept their superstition?

      I am a victim of a combination of mob rule and elite rulers. I don’t want to be ruled. If I can free myself from the insane world I live in by physically removing myself to a society where voluntary interactions are the primary value, then why wouldn’t I?

      • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

        For now, stop kidding your avatar self with earnest fantasizing and learn instead to laugh at your avatar self for being Galt-gullible. What, do metaphors like “mirror” go right over cyber-heads? Try scanning this mediocre poem to receive a quick trivium lesson.

        Since nectar of the gods is a thousand times forbidden
        Since Sarmizegetusa is Gehenna beholden
        Decry the fell goat herders thrice yet bitten
        Of iron, of bronze, and of golden

        With blood and with fire their constitutions are smitten
        Logicians tartarooing times olden
        Take heed of the words that the Homers have written
        Whenever the mirror you embolden

        There is no meatspace voluntaryismland waiting for those who become deluded to the point of seeking escape, there is only a honey pot waiting at the end of each make-believe rainbow. Implement changes toward voluntary transactions wherever one happens to be situated in the real world, so the NWO cannot anywhere begin to formulate a SOP honey pot. The moment one starts searching for a place where others appear to have established voluntaryism, one acknowledges not only that others still rule their decisions, but also that “lesser” people are predestined to live and die as slaves without hope of ever making a voluntary transaction outside the Promised Land. Screw all that. Ignore Gulchfraud and start an alternative economy in the back yard.

        Aspiring rulers call themselves victims, and rend garments, and thereby project onto others responsibility for perceived problems. Free people try to impose no labels, even upon themselves. Fallibility makes the labels fly anyway, which is what aspiring rulers count on to swindle populations into accepting pretense of “necessary evil” governance.

        It is not possible, in any case, for an avatar to be a victim. No biggie, though, even this avatar still pulls the “I” boner from time to time.

  3. Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

    GGC has been put on hold while they correct a personnel problem. It hasn’t collapsed yet. Although we won’t know how bad the problem is until the investigation is completed. I would reserve judgement until then.

    The only way a free community can be created is by the concentration of voluntaryists in a place where govt. does not exist. A free community will always be in danger from statists, both inside and out. While the Honduras city is promised sovereignty, that may be a trap to lure investment. I doubt it, but time will tell. I would invest because it looks like the best chance.

  4. Anthony CaprioNo Gravatar says:

    ZEDEs are modeled after HK and Singapore. It will not be a utopia or a Galt’s Gulch, but hopefully it will be much freer place than anywhere else in the Americas. I like to see geographic regions competing to see who can be the freest.

    • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

      Try spotting the collectivism trap. “Geographic regions” do not compete. Only individuals compete — and for the most part (outside existing totalitarian regimes) they can compete from wherever they happen to be.

      Hell, it’s precisely because people can compete with one another from wherever they happen to be that institutional frauds such as statism and protectionism and unionism and patriotism try to bully everyone toward collectivist compliance.

      • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

        “… institutional frauds…” don’t bully people. People bully people, often with the victim’s consent. Optimally, I want to live in a predominately voluntaryist society. If I am assaulted there, the assault won’t be socially acceptable, i.e, backed up by my neighbors. Doesn’t that make more sense than trying to live free in an unfree society? It’s possible, but more difficult and stressful.

        • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

          To be accurate, that’s called picking “government doesn’t exist” nits.

          Nation states and provinces and counties and the like don’t exist, and hence cannot compete with one another. Institutions like governments and baseball teams and symphony orchestras and cooperatives and corporations do exist and do compete with one another. Mostly it’s the way in which governments (and hence the people therein) pretend to represent imaginary geographical regions that causes some anarchists to make the erroneous claim that governments also do not exist (or there’s the more common and more dangerous error among those who are non-anarchists: that both exist).

          People are the underlying bullies, to be sure, yet it is quite acceptable to speak in terms of a bullying institution because the people therein wouldn’t v-o-l-u-n-t-e-e-r unless they were prepared to act on behalf of the institution (e.g. those who pretend to be in a position to act on behalf of an arbitrary geographical region call their all-too-real institution “government”). A nation state or other geographic region cannot be a bully, because neither is an institution but rather each is an imagined concept — it is only after certain people claim to have formed a government for a geographical region that such kinds of bullying become possible. Put another way: institutions represent labels for the people cooperating therein and no institution would exist if mankind didn’t exist, but geography is something that would exist even if mankind had never been around to slap arbitrary names upon the so-called disparate regions.

          “America sucks” is a nonsensical statement (there is no “America” but rather there is an institution that might very well suck while nonetheless claiming to represent something called “America”).
          “I support the troops” is a statement in support of a bullying institution whose individual members might or might not be bullies (although members probably wouldn’t volunteer in the first place if they weren’t prepared to act like bullies).
          “I support Private So-And-So” is a statement in support of a particular government employee who might or might not be a bully (perhaps the person got busted down to private because they refused to follow an order to bully someone).
          “I support President So-And-So” is a statement in support of a particular government employee who might or might not be a bully (history suggests how often such people are indeed bullies: 100% of the time).

          Stories like The Thin Red Line and The Naked And The Dead and 20000 Leagues Under The Sea touch on such themes of Nature versus institutionalized bullying. Many other stories do as well, of course.

          And no, it makes no sense to pretend that political segregation is an intelligent option. Good fences and good neighbors make popular fantasizing, which is pretty much what that poem was all about: Nature (including the civilized natural state of mankind) versus the authoritarian pretense of Stonecutter Bloodlines.

    • anarchoguitaristNo Gravatar says:

      Great post. I would love to see this project in Honduras and others get started in Latin America. This would be a chance for many who live in those horrible economic and political systems nearby to actually improve their situation. They won’t be distracted by the naysayers telling them to not be deceived by the promises of a better life. These naysayers expound their great wisdom on their fancy 1st-world computers over the internet and tell these misguided poor folk that all they need to do is be free in their mind. “Be free in your mud hut!” “Don’t be fooled into trying to get more freedom than you have now, because you will never be truly free.” “Just be free in you mind and start a voluntary community behind your mud hut on the land you are forced to work on as a serf.” That’s a bunch of BS. Try telling a North Korean the following: “You should stay there and practice your freedom because you are just as free there as you are in South Korea. Oh, and you can’t hide either. North Korea will catch you.” Is someone offering such advice sane? Or have they ever lived on this planet? Such people should go back to their ivory towers, and keep that nonsense advice for people who live in their fantasy world.

  5. Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

    I tend to side with Vandmind. You can run, but you can’t hide.

    Freedom’s where you’re at.

    I am a sovereign state. I believe the fact that so few challenge me on that statement any more is significant to the progress of the internet towards genuine liberty thinking; and I credit “Daily Anarchist” with being a part of that. I’m appreciative of it, even when I frequently disagree with the general themes of some essays presented by administrator(s).

    Because there are hordes among the anarchist/collectivist “movement” who shake their fist at the idea of anybody declaring freedom “where they’re at”. They’ll trot out all the old collectivist laments about how I’m really not free because (1, 2, 3, ad nauseum — all blame rests with “them”, never “me”). So if we could all collectively move to New Hampshire, or Costa Rica, or Honduras, or some floating platform out on the high seas — why, we could “develop” a “free society”.

    With the movers-and-shakers winding up leaders of the pack — tyrants all.

    The idea that “we” have to “organize” the liberty “movement” is behind it all.

    I am the only one who can organize freedom — my freedom.

    I can serve as an example to you and to my neighbors, family and friends. If many up and down the street become free, partly due to my example, my life will become easier.

    But I can’t organize their liberty. Or yours. Sam

    • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

      Great stuff, more clarity than other avatar mumbling.

      • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

        “If many … become free … my life will become easier.” Exactly the point of the oxymoron “freestate project”. It should be called “less slave state”. That would be truth in labeling. To belabor a point, you can wait for your society to come to where you are now, you can become a hermit, you can move to a less enslaved society, or you can found a free society. These are all options people have chosen. That does not mean you have achieved more sovereignty. Sovereignty is an internal choice, enjoyed anywhere, even solitary confinement/torture. No one can take it. It must be surrendered. It is the inalienable property of everyone.

        I prefer to live in the least enslaved community I can find, subject to my partner’s desire to be near her friends/family. Leaving my old home region was not running/hiding. It was a tradeoff of community vs. taxation/regulation, e.g., NV vs. CA. This decision is subject to change, based on the coming dollar/US economy collapse and its fallout. Expatriation is always an option in the worst case scenario. You could denounce such a move as “running/hiding”. Fine. It worked for 25% of the German Jews in the thirties. Most had a long, prosperous life. The ones who stayed died horrible deaths. Can you claim the expats “could not hide”? To be a free spirit you have to be alive. I don’t believe the soul/spirit survives death.

        • VanmindNo Gravatar says:

          Yeah, well, it would take running farther than just across a few state borders to escape a hypothetical genocide. Mises didn’t even feel secure in Switzerland, what with National Socialists gunning for him while they blitzed across Europe.

          These days, there are many people out there who claim that society does indeed have an obligation to bring a person’s dream job to the place they happen to call home. None of that primitive “Detroit Bound Blues” stuff like Blind Blake sang about back in the 20’s. Now sh*t is modern & sh*t.

          This avatar will cease mumbling for a while and let Mr. Maltese Falcon talk greater sense.

  6. Anthony CaprioNo Gravatar says:

    I can agree that a “truly” free person is free even in a prison cell. But I would really like the chance to live in a place where people in authority took less of my stuff. When the USA was founded it was the freest place in the world at the time. No taxes no immigration policy, very small government. The rest of the worlds governments had to become more liberal in their freedoms just to keep up. Something similar happend during Ancient Greece’s golden era, and again in medievil and renasiance europe.

    • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

      What went wrong in “the freest place in the world”? A desire for freedom is not self fulfilling. The Founding Fathers had a noble goal, i.e., to create a system of, by, and for the individual. The DOI was the first document to put the individual first, and claim the system (govt.) was only there to protect the rights of the individual. Unfortunately, a system which would protect rights did not exist, had never existed, and had to be invented. The first attempt was 13 states, held together by a very loose pact for mutual defense from a world of predatory states. Each state was authoritarian. Authoritarianism does not protect rights. So the goal was in danger from the beginning. Living in “a place where people in authority” take less than all other places is not a long time solution. It is a compromise in principle which favors the thieves. It will, and it did, deteriorate into a thieves paradise.

      This should be a history lesson to all who want permanent liberty. Very small governments generate wealth, which draws thieves who conspire to circumvent their limits and expand their power for personal gain. The problem is not that thieves exist. They always have, and always will. The problem is the existence of a system that concentrates personal political power. That kind of power corrupts everyone, even saints, as T.J. demonstrated. It is a mistake to think it can be limited. Two hundred years has amply proven this.

      The alternative is to self govern. Personal responsibility needs to replace the public services with private services. We did it with food, clothing, electronics, and many other goods and services. It works. Public services do not, never have, never will.

  7. GenghisNo Gravatar says:

    Language is a powerful tool. Freedom and liberty are part and parcel of the master/slave dialect. They limit the thinking process.

    No one wants to be free and separate from society. I want to be a servant to my wife, family and friends and hopefully they want to serve me in return. Liberty, Freedom, banishment and shunning are the same thing. Human’s are social animals we need our pack or herd.

    What we really want to do is change the social dynamics, not flee from society. And here is the other dirty little secret, we don’t really want to change things that much, we all want society to serve our needs.

    And now for the final dirty little secret, providing a valuable service is the best way to benefit from any society. The ideal society is one that rewards and enables ‘service’.

    • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

      Genghis: The voluntaryist and the collectivist both agree with everything you said.

      The fundamental disagreement comes in the definition of “enable”. A voluntaryist believes people achieve maximum reward and are incentivized by “the invisible hand” of market forces. When people are free to enslave themselves to any degree, in any relationship, and change their mind and alter their status, based on their values, and not on the threat of violence, then everyone becomes the master of their own fate.

      That is not how society works now. Some freedom in very limited areas exist, but the pursuit of wants/needs is controlled, not by live & let live, but by a centralized authority. The justification is that since some don’t “live” the way some others want them to, or some are violent/controlling, and therefore we need protection by threat of violence or violence. No one has ever explained how the ones we need protection from will be prohibited from getting the monopoly on force we have faith in. But this monopoly of force does free the mind from the responsibility to control one’s life. The job is delegated to the rulers, and we are free to complaint about their performance, ad nauseum.

      I respect people’s right to be irresponsible and let others run their lives. I don’t respect their threatening me if I don’t want to join them. Somehow my self directed life is a threat to them, or so they insist. I disagree.

      • GenghisNo Gravatar says:

        Don, “I don’t respect their threatening me if I don’t want to join them. Somehow my self directed life is a threat to them, or so they insist. I disagree.”

        The force you are talking about is imprisonment or separation (freedom) from our Society. You really don’t want to be separated from Society no matter how much it may disgust you. It is built into our genetic makeup to be social animals.

        What you really mean is that you want society to be ‘better’, you want a better world. Here is where the conflict comes, one mans paradise is another mans hell.

        Let’s take the most basic exchange, Sex. By engaging in sex you are part of society, even if it is just a society of two. The story of Gilgamesh and Enkidu comes to mind. And viola, just like that you are no longer free and the civilizing process has begun. The selfish gene has struck and we are no longer masters of our destiny we have responsibilities and obligations. we are no longer free, if we ever were.

        To be free means to be separate, a State of One, a lone wolf. No one really wants that (with some notable exceptions of course).

        • Don DuncanNo Gravatar says:

          Are you saying to live in society is enslavement? Or, reality enslaves us because there are physical laws, e.g., gravity? Are you claiming all social interaction is unfree interaction, even when it is only voluntary? Do you categorize rape and consensual sex, both, as “unfree acts”? Is masturbation the only kind of sex that is freely undertaken?

          Isn’t that the meaning of your statement: “To be free means to be separate”?

        • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:


          “…(with some notable exceptions of course)…”

          That would be me.


        • STLICTXNo Gravatar says:

          Are you familiar with the Jaghut from the Malazan book of the fallen series? If their way of life could be adapted to humans that would seem rather ideal, in some ways they seemed to have the right idea.
          However, there are more way to be free than simple isolation; there is the idea one may be free in society by living amongst people who all acknowledge each other as being free, and having all of the social structures set up to support each others freedom. This would mean that everyone would need to let go of the idea of being ‘served’ by others, but would not in any sense prohibit ‘gifts of the self’, in other words giving the products of ones own free expression to others gratis because to have ones free expression acknowledged by others is a form of acknowledgment of each others freedom, and it also certainly would not prohibit freedom of contract or exchange with each other so long as this is conducted with the full understanding of all parties that this exchange is being conducted among equally free individuals. I think the former is the ideal of social anarchists and the latter of market anarchists, with left-wing market anarchists such as I am inclined to be nowadays wanting both.
          There is also a growing techno individualist viewpoint, that is that we must cope with our interdependence as things currently stand until we find a way for technology to be sufficiently miniaturized that every individual becomes capable of bootstrapping a full industrial ecology and space travel; though even if this becomes the case it’s much more likely that it would be families who travel outwards simply because that would ensure the continuation of the species(unless technological reproduction becomes more common, and clones or ‘built from genetic scratch’ humans become the most common means of reproduction; the latter would work better than the former, there are reasons why sexual reproduction evolutionary outpaces asexual reproduction though deliberately engineered mutations and genetic alterations for beneficial traits would take care of that)… if one takes this viewpoint, one should seek for the current order of society whatever is most likely to bring this day faster, both by generally quick technological development and by guiding technological development along such an individualistic path. P2P network panarchism seems to be a very good bet on both fronts, as well as being a desirable social system for other reasons.

        • Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:


          “…Let’s take the most basic exchange, Sex. By engaging in sex you are part of society, even if it is just a society of two…”

          Try boiling “engaging in sex” down to a society of one.

          It ain’t luv, but it ain’t bad. 🙂


  8. Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

    I salute Anthony Caprio for an excellent essay. As an educator (in another world) I consider an excellent essay to often be one with which I totally disagree, but which proliferates spirited interchange and comment. This fills the bill — not that I totally disagree (I don’t — totally, that is), but that it has elicited many well-thought-out reflections with respect to freedom and anarchy.

    What I see as the fulcrum in this dialog is the dichotomy of collectivist vocabulary vs freedom vocabulary. Vocabulary = s/he speaks how s/he thinks. Genghis brought up an interesting point of reification: “society” for a couple enjoying sex can be seen as two individuals.

    I am a sovereign state — a “society of one“. I love my family (7 kids, 5 of ’em now over 50 — 25 grandkids and 5 great-grandkids), a few of them statist to the core. One is a lawyer; my oldest daughter is about to retire from one of the top appointed jobs of collectivist government (with a retirement “income” at least twice my total income). How much more statist can you get and still remain an anarchist — and personally sovereign?

    But how they conduct their affairs is not my responsibility. How I conduct mine is my responsibility.

    Anthony (in recent comment):

    “…When the USA was founded it was the freest place in the world at the time. No taxes no immigration policy, very small government…”

    The key (and lesson-learning) phrase here is “very small government” (I haven’t learned the html keys at this site to embolden or underline). “Very small government” is akin to “very small pregnancy”. Needless to remind that psychopathic abstraction called “USA” is now an egregious police state with an incarceration rate the highest on earth — and in the history of the world.

    Which is what gave rise to this good article. And of which I’ll repeat (sorry, anarchoguitarist): you can run, but you can’t hide. I believe Vanmind is right: however many fictitious lines in the sand (“state lines”) you traverse, collectivism will be with you.

    You can shuck that element of collectivism that is within you. One way to start is, of course, to abstain from beans. But I’ll resubmit: you can be free. Here. Today. Close to your family and your friends.

    If you’re living in a mud hut and you want a frame home, get a few boards and start. Today.


  9. Sam SpadeNo Gravatar says:

    I’d like to make an amendment to my comment an hour or so ago.

    First, and to be honest, in my withering old brain I confused this article with another good and more recent one by Amanda B. Johnson regarding “secession” — a totally different topic of discussion, yet along the same line.

    Second, for those with the financial luxury to own a second home in a far-away and rather exotic location, there is an article in today’s Daily Bell that makes good sense. Because it’s obvious that economic collapse (no doubt at least in part orchestrated by a power elite faction), with its accompanying hyper-totalitarianism, will soon beset us. The fallout will not be appetizing. I’d never advise against having a fire plan to ameliorate the pain — that’s not at all what I meant by my comment above.

    My point is that anarchists would do well to look askance at any “Zonas de Empleo y Desarollo Economico (Zone for Employment and Economic Development) or ZEDE” plans promulgated by psychopaths operating under the umbrella of “the state”. They will be co-opted. In time.

    Never rely upon monopoly state.

    Wile at “Bell” chose Columbia for his second home and “bug-out” place. Honduras, I’m sure, would be ever bit as pleasant — and especially if one can procure an agreeable place within one of these “zonas”.