4 ms·

I wonder if everyone in this thread and this study is using the same vocabulary. When I hear or use the term "global citizen" I think of someone who doesn't ple

I wonder if everyone in this thread and this study is using the same vocabulary. When I hear or use the term "global citizen" I think of someone who doesn't pledge loyalty to any government but instead recognizes the existence of a global human community that they are already a part of. Judging by some responses, however, it seems as if using the term "global citizen" is seen as implicit support for some kind of central world government.

dunkelheit 10y ago
Right. For me (and maybe other commenters as well) the term "citizen" implies paying taxes to an armed entity in exchange for some protection and rights. So "global citizen" in this sense definitely implies some form of a global government. But of course the article doesn't talk about anything like that. I guess it intentionally uses the flashy term "global citizen" when its main message could be expressed simply as "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states".
- librvf 10y ago
  > "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states" The world will not be stable with that sentiment for long. At some point, the "global citizen" will seek to express their political will; a will that will inevitably conflict with the will of the Nation-State. To do that, the "global citizens" must have sponsors, leaders, and some way to organize. Would-be sponsors, leaders,and organizers will see the potential for gain here and will step in to sponsor, lead, and organize the "global citizens." And at that point, a central world government has been seeded and will begin to grow. Alternately, people will remain organized in Nation-states and the "Global Citizen" mentality will fade away since it won't have any relevant meaning.
  - dunkelheit 10y ago
    Haven't thought about it, kudos for taking a longer-term view :) But your scenario requires that some sizable majority of people share the same sentiment. E.g. the idea of "world proletarian revolution" rests on the assumption that the majority of people are workers who will be more loyal to their class than their state. On the other hand it is entirely possible for most people to be more loyal to numerous hypothetical global communities which are too small to oppose nation-states. Everything stays the same in this case.
librvf 10y ago
It's impossible to have global citizens without a global government. Those "global citizens" not satisfied by National organization will seek leaders and rules, and there will be conflict until a power fills the desired role. And ultimately, they'll discover that the "global human community" has as many differences as similarities and not all of those differences are compatible.
hartpuff 10y ago
It would not surprise me if the latter is a primarily American interpretation. (The US being the spiritual home of "NWO"/anti-Government sentiment.)

dunkelheit 10y ago

Right. For me (and maybe other commenters as well) the term "citizen" implies paying taxes to an armed entity in exchange for some protection and rights. So "global citizen" in this sense definitely implies some form of a global government. But of course the article doesn't talk about anything like that. I guess it intentionally uses the flashy term "global citizen" when its main message could be expressed simply as "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states".

librvf 10y ago
> "more and more people don't feel much loyalty for their respective states" The world will not be stable with that sentiment for long. At some point, the "global citizen" will seek to express their political will; a will that will inevitably conflict with the will of the Nation-State. To do that, the "global citizens" must have sponsors, leaders, and some way to organize. Would-be sponsors, leaders,and organizers will see the potential for gain here and will step in to sponsor, lead, and organize the "global citizens." And at that point, a central world government has been seeded and will begin to grow. Alternately, people will remain organized in Nation-states and the "Global Citizen" mentality will fade away since it won't have any relevant meaning.
- dunkelheit 10y ago
  Haven't thought about it, kudos for taking a longer-term view :) But your scenario requires that some sizable majority of people share the same sentiment. E.g. the idea of "world proletarian revolution" rests on the assumption that the majority of people are workers who will be more loyal to their class than their state. On the other hand it is entirely possible for most people to be more loyal to numerous hypothetical global communities which are too small to oppose nation-states. Everything stays the same in this case.

librvf 10y ago

It's impossible to have global citizens without a global government. Those "global citizens" not satisfied by National organization will seek leaders and rules, and there will be conflict until a power fills the desired role. And ultimately, they'll discover that the "global human community" has as many differences as similarities and not all of those differences are compatible.

hartpuff 10y ago

It would not surprise me if the latter is a primarily American interpretation. (The US being the spiritual home of "NWO"/anti-Government sentiment.)