>People like Schmidt purchase themselves [...] freedom of movement

This is not immoral.

>where ordinary people [...] are locked into their country

This is

Its not like he just inherited his wealth and is now skipping out ASAP.

Don't get me wrong: I don't like the idea of buying a citizenship at all. But this won't let him escape taxes, if you think that was his intention.

I mean, first, citizenship is made up. Many people have dual citizenship, and many countries will give you citizenship for ancestorship. And, of course, most countries offer citizenship to newborns who aren't contributing much and don't currently care about the country they're living in (and some countries, like the US, do so for babies born in the US to people who aren't citizens).

The US has the most draconian global tax system of any country in the world, and has the unique position of being able to actually enforce it due to the fact the USD is the reserve currency of the world and every country needs to stay on the good side of the US Treasury to transact in the global economy.

In fact, the laws are so strict, they make living abroad as an honest middle-class expat a total nightmare. I have friends who cannot find a single bank in their country that will work with them because of the reporting requirements of working with US citizens. They cannot save in foreign banks and they cannot invest either due to the US penalizing foreign Mutual fund/ETF purchases by private citizens.

But I’m sorry. Me and many others see the nation state as a service provider. An institution that enforces the rule of law, furnishes protection from invaders and criminals, and provides large-scale public goods in exchange for some slice of tax revenue and a code of conduct.

But if I’m unhappy with a service provider, then I should be free to change vendors to whomever meets my need. No different than the freedom to pay for a new phone plan or new gym membership.

You complain that ordinary people don’t have the same consumer choice as the ultra-wealthy. If so, the focus should be on how to make the global market for nation-states more competitive for a wider range of consumers. I agree that many are locked into a shitty service provider. But if anything, the tiny slice of people who can exercise a choice almost certainly makes this market more, not less, competitive.

Says who? You?

The beauty of people is we have different opinions. If Cyprus wants to sell their citizenship for a dollar each, that's their right.

> People like Schmidt purchase themselves a...

Yes, that's one of the motivating factors for being rich, is being able to purchase things afterwards.

There's a child dying somewhere on this planet right now and here you are moralizing on HackerNews - people like you purchase themselves an internet connection and talk about blah blah, while a child is dying.

Citizenship is just a legal relation between a person and a country. If both sides want that relationship, then it is perfectly moral to start such relationship.

But, by buying the citizenship, they are not just showing in some vague indirect way that they "want to" contribute to the country, they are actually, directly, palpably contributing to the country.

> People like Schmidt purchase themselves a tax excemption or freedom of movement in a world where ordinary people right now lose their jobs and are locked into their country.

I'm confused, is your complaint that Schmidt hasn't done enough to "earn" citizenship, or that people that don't have less capacity to contribute should also enjoy what Schmidt does.

Here's an idea for a short story: Schmidt does indeed wish so; he becomes a politician in the EU and places himself in a position that allows him to make the EU a much more friendly place for the adtech industry and surveillance capitalism.

There are no tax benefits for US citizens in Cyprus. Giving up your US citizenship involves a significant exit tax.

People go to Cyprus specifically because they want a Schengen passport.

Not totally unreasonable for a global CEO.