To be fair, that can happen already given current citizenship schemes. And if the key service provided by a "citizenship provider" is filing paperwork and running PR for groups of interests, there's no reason to assume a monopoly. If governments competed to make their citizens lives materially better, that might be better than what we've got.
On a somewhat unrelated tangent, there's that famous kennedy quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." It's often cited as being this profound political statement. But it's not. It's basically the definition of an abusive relationship. A lot of people believe citizenship should not (or cannot) be a fluid concept directed by competition and self interest. I generally disagree. But I'm not talking about libertarianism; I don't think government needs to be abolished. It's more like, they need tangible goals and metrics and accountability.
On a somewhat unrelated tangent, there's that famous kennedy quote, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." It's often cited as being this profound political statement. But it's not. It's basically the definition of an abusive relationship. A lot of people believe citizenship should not (or cannot) be a fluid concept directed by competition and self interest. I generally disagree. But I'm not talking about libertarianism; I don't think government needs to be abolished. It's more like, they need tangible goals and metrics and accountability.