Onarchy, your distinction between social and economic freedom is subjective.

You say that your "free state" will have zero regulation but various decrees on gay relationships, drugs, or whatever enforced by the host country.

But those decrees are regulations.  

Objectively, regulations against an individual's sex life, or social life, or spiritual life, or whatever life are not different than regulations against an individual's money making life.

All restrictions on how an individual can achieve maximum subjective utility without violating the non-aggression principle, are equally immoral. Some people may derive utility from making lots of money, others from becoming a monk and meditating all day (and yes even poor people pursue that goal sometimes - look at India for example).  

Your "free state" will only give people maximum freedom in the money making aspect of their life while still infringing on other freedoms, as dictated by the host country's arbitrary morality.  You say that it doesn’t matter so much because (according to your subjective opinion) freedom in the money making area is somehow superior to freedom in other areas, and poor people mainly care about economic freedom anyhow.

I say, fundamentally there is only one kind of freedom, and let the individual decide which "flavours" of that freedom are important to her/him.  Who is being the arrogant rich Westerner here, making that decision for them?

Perhaps gay porn is a bad example, but it's simply not true that people from poor parts of the world are not concerned about the so called social freedoms.  A better example is religion, and lack of freedom of thereof is bound to lead to the brutal oppression of some immigrant minorities in a theocratic host country.  Either that or people from other cultures simply won't immigrate and the free state will never become your multicultural utopia.

Also, I'm curious about this: Imagine the host county mandates some really silly, religiously motivated decree, I dunno, like "driving a car on a Saturday is punishable by prison".  When I move to the free state and challenge the decree in the supreme court, and the supreme court can find no evidence whatsoever, empirical or first principle, that the decree is beneficial, who’s side will the court take? And if it does take my side, how will it deal with the host country's hostility?