3 ms·
For all the talk about "World Citizenship", the reality is if you actually had world-wide democracy where everyone could vote, you would actually end up with a
by RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
For all the talk about "World Citizenship", the reality is if you actually had world-wide democracy where everyone could vote, you would actually end up with a very regressive government in terms of women's rights and LGBTQ rights.
Those rights mainly are accepted in Western Europe and the US, and by the business elite in many countries. But among the vast majority of the populations of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, those rights are not accepted.
With such different views about basic rights, I am actually happy that we do not have a global government, but that I can live in a country that respects those rights.
- bobthechef 5y agoAnd on the flip size, those living in countries that reject the notion that these are rights don't wish to be subjected to ceaseless attempts to jam them down their throats. Yet that is what's happening. That's what the American empire and its proxies has been doing. But trust me. Anyone who's interested in "world citizenship" isn't keen on letting people vote, certainly not those you call "regressive".
- Arubis 5y agoThere's opportunity for nuance in these concepts. World citizenship needn't mean the elimination of any other hierarchy of rule and representation, in the same sense that the existence of the US Federal government doesn't eliminate state law, nor the EU government negate individual nations. There exist some entities like this already, like the International Court of Justice (although admittedly weakened by being beholden to countries signing on). However, your point in that most folks that use the phrase "citizen of the world" are likely to be more politically progressive writ large than the median person strikes me as likely to be true.