5 ms·

What does "global citizen" even mean? I am quite happy to be a citizen of smaller entities. I would like them to be even smaller, not larger. I'm German, and I

What does "global citizen" even mean? I am quite happy to be a citizen of smaller entities. I would like them to be even smaller, not larger. I'm German, and I find the size of that entity in terms of democratic accountability almost too large already. Definitely constructs like the EU are overblown and have too many competencies. I would prefer a small state like Switzerland with a small population, but direct democracy and relatively direct accountability.

staticelf 10y ago
I agree, smaller is better. Just like big corporations, I am totally convinced that if countries get too big, there is an increasing risk for corruption and evilness. Just look at Russia, China and the US. Today, Putin is president (cough dictator cough) and he is kinda scary since he is so unpredictable. What if he gets cancer and wants to be remembered as someone who gave Russia more power and start WW3? I will be as scared for Trump if he gains power in the US. China feels kind of stable, but none of these mega nations feels safe for us living in a smaller country. When so few people gains so much power, corruption is inevitable due to our nature.
philippnagel 10y ago
Democratic accountability does not depend upon the size of an entity. Instead it relies on how said entity is internally structured (e.g. direct democracy vs. more representative models) and how prone to corruption it is. Personally I think nation states are rather burdensome. In business one has to handle countless different legal and tax frameworks while fundamentally every human has comparable needs. Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? The inefficiency is just mind boggling in my opinion.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  > "fundamentally every human has comparable needs" That assumption has been at the core of some wonderful experiments in the 20th century, and the people who had the fortune to live under regimes based on that assumption showed their preference for moving to exactly the alternatives that the assumption is trying to exclude. Or tried to do so and got killed by the people who knew what their true needs were.
  - philippnagel 10y ago
    I think you misunderstood. Care to elaborate on experiments? "comparable needs" does not necessarily refer to tangible goods. The central needs are probably freedom and a justice system protecting individual rights and us from each other, not e.g. everyone driving the same car.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? I don't disagree with your inefficiency comment, but upsides are diversity of trying things in 196 slightly different ways, 196 chances to fail without thew whole system going down, and the opportunity for individuals to move to a place that is most inline with their personal philosophy.
  - allemagne 10y ago
    >the opportunity for individuals to move to a place that is most inline with their personal philosophy There are very, very few people who are lucky enough to base their current country on their personal philosophy.
- jerf 10y ago
  I see no evidence one government would suffice. There's too much diversity in the world, of both the politically fashionable kinds and the kinds that are currently politically unfashionable to acknowledge but don't cease to apply because of that. Even the EU is frequently criticized for instance for the difficult-to-the-point-of-impossible task of tying together all of its economies under one currency, just to give one example of major structural issues it raises, and is at the very least under a lot of stress, if not outright coming apart. If you can't even integrate Europe you can forget about running the whole world under one government. The EU is your best case.
  - philippnagel 10y ago
    Valid points but I have some objections. What you described is mostly descriptive while I argued purely normative. That doesn't make your arguments less true but we have to acknowledge the different viewpoints. The problem with the EU is that is not a government, stuck in some sort of limbo in-between sovereign European states and people that would like to see a fully integrated European government. I myself living in Germany would like to see such a European government if the structural issues within the EU are solved (e.g. lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Commission). I agree with you on the currency issue. But it is solvable through more European integration and solidarity. In the US for example some states are economically weaker, while others are economically stronger. A fiscal union allocates federal taxes to the weaker ones, in order to ease economic differences. Such a model should be considered in the EU. What worries me most about the current state of the EU is the pessimism. Yes, there are pressing issues and controversies but instead of choosing isolation (e.g. Poland and possibly the UK) we should rebuild and innovate what fundamentally is a rather successful project. Prosperity and peace are at an all time high. These all time highs are in danger now but can't be solved through reverting back to national states. Problems are global now and therefore have to be solved globally.
    - jerf 10y ago
      "What you described is mostly descriptive while I argued purely normative" A normative claim that the world "should" have one government when there's no way to make it work is just fantasy. Nonexistent options don't figure into the moral calculus. If the EU can't be made to work it certainly can't be extended to the entire world. You think the stress of the EU is going to be lessened when it is outvoted on every issue by Asia? Every major centralization of power right now is under huge stress and in serious danger of flying apart at the seams in the next couple of decades. There's no current "world government" option.
- Mendenhall 10y ago
  "Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice?" Same reason ships have separate compartments in the hull, so if one floods they all don't. Basically it is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket.
  - alanwatts 10y ago
    >Spaceship Earth now has 150 admirals. The five admirals in the staterooms immediately above the ship's fuel tanks claim that they own the oil. The admirals with staterooms surrounding the ship's kitchen, dining rooms, and food refrigerators claim they own all the food. Those with a stateroom next to a lifeboat claim that they own the lifeboat, and so forth. They then have an onboard game called balance of trade. Very shortly the majority of admirals have a deficit balance. All the while the starboard-side admirals are secretly planning to list the boat to port far enough to drown the portside admirals, while the portside admirals are secretly trying to list the boat to starboard far enough to drown the starboard-side admirals. Nobody is paying any attention to operating the ship or steering it to some port. They run out of food and fuel. They discover that they can no longer reach a port of supply. Finis. -Buckminster Fuller
yequalsx 10y ago
I think smaller governmental entities sounds good but if not met with a corresponding limit on corporate power the unintended consequences will be bad. What I would like to see is to not have power concentrated in too few hands. It seems to me there is way too much money in way too few hands.
return0 10y ago
It seems everybody is. It's hard to deny the trend away from national identity and closer to a cultural identity, at least in europe. Global citizen means person without (a national) culture (other than consumer culture maybe). But culture is a human need. Ideally, we should live in a world where free movement allows us to choose the culture that fits us best, and stick with it. In this world, only a few strong cultures would survive.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Global citizen means person without culture Does it? Seems more like people without a strong connection to a national culture, which doesn't mean they don't have culture. The example of Spain, pointed out in the article as one of the OECD countries where more people identify as "global citizens" versus of their country, is informative, as much of Spanish culture is highly regional. A citizen of Catalonia or the Basque region might have plenty of local cultural attachment without feeling a strong connection to the country overall.
  - return0 10y ago
    Yes sorry i edited my comment to make that clear. The question is, is a nation without a culture justified?
- hawleyal 10y ago
  The article is not about cultural identity. It is about membership in a country/nation/state versus not.
varjag 10y ago
As the scale of governance goes down, the degree of nepotism, corruption and incompetence goes up, other things being equal.
- Retric 10y ago
  US seems to do both, with city/county, state, and federal nepotism, corruption, and incompetence.
  - varjag 10y ago
    Eisenhower had to bring in 101st Airborne to Little Rock, in order to rule in the governor and his National Guard. You can argue things have changed since 1950s, but near every controversial action making the headlines (book bans, stand your ground laws, ID teaching in schools, anti-immigrant action, homophobic legislation, racially motivated police crimes) seem to come from county and state level.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Iraq war and the response to Katrina are fairly resent examples of federal boondoggles that I think most people can agree with. More recent examples may be less well known but Secret Courts, F-22, TSA still being broken, and well take your pick. Don't forget immigration law is a Federal boondoggle.
exelius 10y ago
While I don't agree with your sentiment personally (I'm American, I have lived in many parts of the country so I see myself as American above all else), I do think that in many places -- especially the emerging parts of the world -- people identify with smaller groups that aren't bounded by the arbitrary borders the colonial powers drew up after WW2. I would also agree with you that Germany (and many other places in Europe, but Germany stands out for me just because of the local nature of beer there) have more regional identity than the US does. A perfect example are the Kurdish people spread across Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They identify as Kurdish; and don't view themselves as citizens of Syria, Turkey or Iraq. In the emerging world, this situation is common -- basic services are provided by local tribal groups, not by the national government (which is usually dominated by another ethnic group that diverts resources to its own people). Those tribal groups may or may not be confined within a single country. Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis.
- alanwatts 10y ago
  >Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis. Nationalism erects walls between ethnic groups by definition. Framing it as "within a country" is missing the forest for the trees.
Joeri 10y ago
The geographic coordinate of your birth should not be the defining factor in your opportunities in life. If you are born in a poor country with low opportunities, why is that your fault? Why shouldn't you be allowed to get the opportunities of someone born in a rich country? Why do we allow countries to deny people their basic human rights? Why should there be segregation allowed under the banner of the supposed egalitarian UN? I don't see how you rhyme nationalism with human rights and equal opportunity.
- api 10y ago
  The same logic can be applied to your genetics and is a classic argument in favor of a welfare state.
- elcapitan 10y ago
  Why would people from one place on earth be entitled to the wealth of other people somewhere else on earth? Is the neighbor family one block away entitled to live in my flat, because they should have equal opportunity to live there? I think not.
  - Joeri 10y ago
    You're making a travesty of what equal opportunity means. It's not about getting things without earning them, it's about getting the same shot at earning them. Redistribution of wealth to provide equal opportunity is a fundamental principle of many countries and societies. I'm arguing that if you are for this principle, then how could you argue it should stop at a border? And if instead you're in favor of abolishing all income redistribution, then in essence that is also an implicit argument for abolishing government, which again makes borders meaningless. Either way, rationally, i see no objective defense for the principle of borders restricting what people have access to. Compare the US and mexico. A child may be born 5 miles south and lose an incredible amount of opportunity. Why is that fair? What did the child do to earn that station in life? Why are castes accepted when they are cross-border but not inside a country? Why should poverty be inherited? (I'm not arguing against inheriting wealth, just against inheriting poverty and not getting a fair chance at making your own wealth as a consequence.)
hawleyal 10y ago
Smaller regional entities doesn't work if there exist larger global entities. Government or corporation, doesn't matter. City hall can't fight USA or Walmart.

staticelf 10y ago

I agree, smaller is better. Just like big corporations, I am totally convinced that if countries get too big, there is an increasing risk for corruption and evilness. Just look at Russia, China and the US. Today, Putin is president (cough dictator cough) and he is kinda scary since he is so unpredictable. What if he gets cancer and wants to be remembered as someone who gave Russia more power and start WW3? I will be as scared for Trump if he gains power in the US. China feels kind of stable, but none of these mega nations feels safe for us living in a smaller country. When so few people gains so much power, corruption is inevitable due to our nature.

philippnagel 10y ago

Democratic accountability does not depend upon the size of an entity. Instead it relies on how said entity is internally structured (e.g. direct democracy vs. more representative models) and how prone to corruption it is. Personally I think nation states are rather burdensome. In business one has to handle countless different legal and tax frameworks while fundamentally every human has comparable needs. Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? The inefficiency is just mind boggling in my opinion.

elcapitan 10y ago
> "fundamentally every human has comparable needs" That assumption has been at the core of some wonderful experiments in the 20th century, and the people who had the fortune to live under regimes based on that assumption showed their preference for moving to exactly the alternatives that the assumption is trying to exclude. Or tried to do so and got killed by the people who knew what their true needs were.
- philippnagel 10y ago
  I think you misunderstood. Care to elaborate on experiments? "comparable needs" does not necessarily refer to tangible goods. The central needs are probably freedom and a justice system protecting individual rights and us from each other, not e.g. everyone driving the same car.
mistermann 10y ago
> Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice? I don't disagree with your inefficiency comment, but upsides are diversity of trying things in 196 slightly different ways, 196 chances to fail without thew whole system going down, and the opportunity for individuals to move to a place that is most inline with their personal philosophy.
- allemagne 10y ago
  >the opportunity for individuals to move to a place that is most inline with their personal philosophy There are very, very few people who are lucky enough to base their current country on their personal philosophy.
jerf 10y ago
I see no evidence one government would suffice. There's too much diversity in the world, of both the politically fashionable kinds and the kinds that are currently politically unfashionable to acknowledge but don't cease to apply because of that. Even the EU is frequently criticized for instance for the difficult-to-the-point-of-impossible task of tying together all of its economies under one currency, just to give one example of major structural issues it raises, and is at the very least under a lot of stress, if not outright coming apart. If you can't even integrate Europe you can forget about running the whole world under one government. The EU is your best case.
- philippnagel 10y ago
  Valid points but I have some objections. What you described is mostly descriptive while I argued purely normative. That doesn't make your arguments less true but we have to acknowledge the different viewpoints. The problem with the EU is that is not a government, stuck in some sort of limbo in-between sovereign European states and people that would like to see a fully integrated European government. I myself living in Germany would like to see such a European government if the structural issues within the EU are solved (e.g. lack of democratic legitimacy of the European Commission). I agree with you on the currency issue. But it is solvable through more European integration and solidarity. In the US for example some states are economically weaker, while others are economically stronger. A fiscal union allocates federal taxes to the weaker ones, in order to ease economic differences. Such a model should be considered in the EU. What worries me most about the current state of the EU is the pessimism. Yes, there are pressing issues and controversies but instead of choosing isolation (e.g. Poland and possibly the UK) we should rebuild and innovate what fundamentally is a rather successful project. Prosperity and peace are at an all time high. These all time highs are in danger now but can't be solved through reverting back to national states. Problems are global now and therefore have to be solved globally.
  - jerf 10y ago
    "What you described is mostly descriptive while I argued purely normative" A normative claim that the world "should" have one government when there's no way to make it work is just fantasy. Nonexistent options don't figure into the moral calculus. If the EU can't be made to work it certainly can't be extended to the entire world. You think the stress of the EU is going to be lessened when it is outvoted on every issue by Asia? Every major centralization of power right now is under huge stress and in serious danger of flying apart at the seams in the next couple of decades. There's no current "world government" option.
Mendenhall 10y ago
"Why operate ~196 governments when one government would suffice?" Same reason ships have separate compartments in the hull, so if one floods they all don't. Basically it is not wise to put all your eggs in one basket.
- alanwatts 10y ago
  >Spaceship Earth now has 150 admirals. The five admirals in the staterooms immediately above the ship's fuel tanks claim that they own the oil. The admirals with staterooms surrounding the ship's kitchen, dining rooms, and food refrigerators claim they own all the food. Those with a stateroom next to a lifeboat claim that they own the lifeboat, and so forth. They then have an onboard game called balance of trade. Very shortly the majority of admirals have a deficit balance. All the while the starboard-side admirals are secretly planning to list the boat to port far enough to drown the portside admirals, while the portside admirals are secretly trying to list the boat to starboard far enough to drown the starboard-side admirals. Nobody is paying any attention to operating the ship or steering it to some port. They run out of food and fuel. They discover that they can no longer reach a port of supply. Finis. -Buckminster Fuller

yequalsx 10y ago

I think smaller governmental entities sounds good but if not met with a corresponding limit on corporate power the unintended consequences will be bad. What I would like to see is to not have power concentrated in too few hands. It seems to me there is way too much money in way too few hands.

return0 10y ago

It seems everybody is. It's hard to deny the trend away from national identity and closer to a cultural identity, at least in europe. Global citizen means person without (a national) culture (other than consumer culture maybe). But culture is a human need. Ideally, we should live in a world where free movement allows us to choose the culture that fits us best, and stick with it. In this world, only a few strong cultures would survive.

icebraining 10y ago
Global citizen means person without culture Does it? Seems more like people without a strong connection to a national culture, which doesn't mean they don't have culture. The example of Spain, pointed out in the article as one of the OECD countries where more people identify as "global citizens" versus of their country, is informative, as much of Spanish culture is highly regional. A citizen of Catalonia or the Basque region might have plenty of local cultural attachment without feeling a strong connection to the country overall.
- return0 10y ago
  Yes sorry i edited my comment to make that clear. The question is, is a nation without a culture justified?
hawleyal 10y ago
The article is not about cultural identity. It is about membership in a country/nation/state versus not.

varjag 10y ago

As the scale of governance goes down, the degree of nepotism, corruption and incompetence goes up, other things being equal.

Retric 10y ago
US seems to do both, with city/county, state, and federal nepotism, corruption, and incompetence.
- varjag 10y ago
  Eisenhower had to bring in 101st Airborne to Little Rock, in order to rule in the governor and his National Guard. You can argue things have changed since 1950s, but near every controversial action making the headlines (book bans, stand your ground laws, ID teaching in schools, anti-immigrant action, homophobic legislation, racially motivated police crimes) seem to come from county and state level.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Iraq war and the response to Katrina are fairly resent examples of federal boondoggles that I think most people can agree with. More recent examples may be less well known but Secret Courts, F-22, TSA still being broken, and well take your pick. Don't forget immigration law is a Federal boondoggle.

exelius 10y ago

While I don't agree with your sentiment personally (I'm American, I have lived in many parts of the country so I see myself as American above all else), I do think that in many places -- especially the emerging parts of the world -- people identify with smaller groups that aren't bounded by the arbitrary borders the colonial powers drew up after WW2. I would also agree with you that Germany (and many other places in Europe, but Germany stands out for me just because of the local nature of beer there) have more regional identity than the US does. A perfect example are the Kurdish people spread across Syria, Turkey and Iraq. They identify as Kurdish; and don't view themselves as citizens of Syria, Turkey or Iraq. In the emerging world, this situation is common -- basic services are provided by local tribal groups, not by the national government (which is usually dominated by another ethnic group that diverts resources to its own people). Those tribal groups may or may not be confined within a single country. Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis.

alanwatts 10y ago
>Nationalism cuts both ways -- it's useful for tearing down the walls between ethnic groups within a country, but take it too far and you get Nazis. Nationalism erects walls between ethnic groups by definition. Framing it as "within a country" is missing the forest for the trees.

Joeri 10y ago

The geographic coordinate of your birth should not be the defining factor in your opportunities in life. If you are born in a poor country with low opportunities, why is that your fault? Why shouldn't you be allowed to get the opportunities of someone born in a rich country? Why do we allow countries to deny people their basic human rights? Why should there be segregation allowed under the banner of the supposed egalitarian UN? I don't see how you rhyme nationalism with human rights and equal opportunity.

api 10y ago
The same logic can be applied to your genetics and is a classic argument in favor of a welfare state.
elcapitan 10y ago
Why would people from one place on earth be entitled to the wealth of other people somewhere else on earth? Is the neighbor family one block away entitled to live in my flat, because they should have equal opportunity to live there? I think not.
- Joeri 10y ago
  You're making a travesty of what equal opportunity means. It's not about getting things without earning them, it's about getting the same shot at earning them. Redistribution of wealth to provide equal opportunity is a fundamental principle of many countries and societies. I'm arguing that if you are for this principle, then how could you argue it should stop at a border? And if instead you're in favor of abolishing all income redistribution, then in essence that is also an implicit argument for abolishing government, which again makes borders meaningless. Either way, rationally, i see no objective defense for the principle of borders restricting what people have access to. Compare the US and mexico. A child may be born 5 miles south and lose an incredible amount of opportunity. Why is that fair? What did the child do to earn that station in life? Why are castes accepted when they are cross-border but not inside a country? Why should poverty be inherited? (I'm not arguing against inheriting wealth, just against inheriting poverty and not getting a fair chance at making your own wealth as a consequence.)

hawleyal 10y ago

Smaller regional entities doesn't work if there exist larger global entities. Government or corporation, doesn't matter. City hall can't fight USA or Walmart.