Comments 19

全球公民，国家逃避者

Feb 10, 2017 Dani Rodrik

坎布里奇—去年10月，英国首相梅驳斥了全球公民权的思想，这令许多人感到震惊。“如果你认为你是世界公民，” 她说，“那你就哪里的公民也不是。”

她的话引起了财经媒体和自由派评论家的一片批评和警告。“当今最有用的公民权形式，”一位分析师向她呛声，“就是不但要致力于伯克希尔教区的福祉，也要致力于整个地球的福祉。”《经济学人》称之为“反自由”转变。一位学者指责她的演讲背弃了启蒙运动价值观，警告这是在“呼应1933年”。

我知道“全球公民”是个什么玩意儿：照照镜子，我就能看到一个完美的样本。我生长在一国，生活在另一国，并持有两国护照。我撰写国际经济学文章，我的工作让我要访问非常边远的地区。我在其他国家旅行的时间比我在两个承认我的公民地位的国家都要多。

We hope you're enjoying Project Syndicate.

To continue reading, subscribe now.

Get unlimited access to PS premium content, including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, On Point, the Big Picture, the PS Archive, and our annual year-ahead magazine.

Already have an account or want to create one? Log in

Dani Rodrik

Writing for PS since 1998
154 Commentaries

Dani Rodrik is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy, Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science, and, most recently, Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 27 in all 27 Comments on this article

Martin Malliet Feb 27, 2017

It's the politics of the Welfare State that create these false dilemmas, we know at least since Frédéric Bastiat (1850). Political interventionism in the social order founded on private property and contractual freedom: 'to each his own' (suum cuisque), the principle of social order that is as scalable as Google big data technology. - We have had Brexit, and soon we will have French and German elections, in which antiliberal tendencies believe they must oppose a cosmopolitan liberal order. Which in truth is everything but liberal! As the case of the overregulated EU social model amply shows. - If only we could go back to 11th-century Europe and Anselm of Canterbury! Who was also known as Anselmo d'Aosta, and who would have laughed at our discussions on citizenship: "You people love to run around in circles, don't you? Ever heard of Augustine's Civitas Dei? 5th century? Or of a man called Plato, who came even before?" - Or at least to somewhere before the Enlightenment gave people the impression that they could believe whatever they wanted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
S Kaleberg Feb 21, 2017

Medieval Europe was run by a cosmopolitan elite, the clergy and the aristocracy. The former were international with a headquarters in Rome, and the latter regarded the land and people of Europe as income producing property and little more. Nationalism worked a lot better in terms of economics, freedom and human development.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Tom Ealey Feb 20, 2017

Rodrik is a tremendous guy, but most people cannot be globe trotting Harvard professors, as he well knows. Were it that other economists had some of his good sense.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Remler Feb 19, 2017

This is a brave comment in the right direction but it does not go nearly far enough. "Swedes" and other "cosmopolitans" did not die fighting the Nazis or Communism. Americans and the citizens of other real countries did. American blood and treasure have bought rights that demand recognition and those that do not recognize those rights have little to no moral standing.
- Lucas Picador Feb 22, 2017
  
  Over 8,000 Swedes volunteered to fight on behalf of Finland against the Soviets during WWII. So, first, you're wrong that "Swedes [...] did not die fighting [...] Communism", and second, this is a historical example of "cosmopolitans" sacrificing themselves on behalf of global order despite their home country's policy of neutrality. Really terrible example to have evoked in your defence of nationalism.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Stefan S Feb 19, 2017

Heraclitus says: μάχεσθαι χρὴ τὸν δῆμον ὑπὲρ τοῦ νόμου ὅκωσπερ τείχεος (Fragment 44) "The people must fight for the law as for their city wall." The necessity to preserve the rule of law relies upon the action of the common people.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Feb 19, 2017

'In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?' Saint Augustine

And are we to believe that globalisation which is essentially about trade and therefore corporations profit will provide justice in the absence of sovereignty

.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
slightly optimistic Feb 16, 2017

The US's TPP was a good idea in essence. If adopted and adapted by the WTO it could provide global rules of finance that prevent the next hegemon demanding tribute from the rest of the world. National advantage here.
- slightly optimistic Feb 17, 2017
  
  Ah, you want to scrap the WTO.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- D. Carter Feb 17, 2017
  
  Replacing national autonomy with the the hegemony of the global capitalist elites tribunal system who will I'm sure will be absolutely fair to workers, locals and national resources . Hahahaha, right!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
E Aghdasi Feb 15, 2017

Well thought out and written, as always.

Within my circle of friends of late there has been an odd mix of international awareness coupled with a sense of powerlessness . The best illustration of this has been regarding the suffering in Aleppo, where on social media people commonly post heartwrenching videos and things showing the horror there. And yet there is little one can do to alleviate these poor people's suffering. You can write your Congressman all you like, but some suffering on the world stage (as in the case of Syria) is because of a rigid stalemate between world powers. There is little I can do realistically to change the interplay between these powers, and coming to grips with that truth can be painful.

What can do is to take that natural, human reaction to suffering elsewhere and express it locally. There are plenty of opportunities. All we need to do is look. The worst thing we can do is let that sense of civic responsibility and humanity be wasted.

As to this particular point:

"But what happens when the welfare of local residents comes into conflict with the wellbeing of foreigners – as it often does? Isn’t disregard of their compatriots in such situations precisely what gives so-called cosmopolitan elites their bad name?"

I don't want to overstep the intended meaning of things like rationality, self-interest, etc. as they are used by economists and political scientists. But I would say this: the statement above alleging that "the welfare of local residents [often] comes into conflict with the wellbeing of foreigners" is necessarily true only in a narrow materialistic sense. If Americans lived in a constant state of empathy for, for instance, their much poorer brothers and sisters in Sub-Saharan Africa, then a policy of greatly expanded international aid to those countries would be both detrimental to Americans' material well-being and democratically popular.

Of course the world doesn't work like that -- people don't really care enough about the lot of those outside their national boundaries -- but that is the point. If that were to change, this tension between national and international policies would relax, and many global issues could be solved much more easily.

Democratic representatives much respond to the interests of their constituents. Of course. But let's consider the possibility that the interests of those constituents can be much more magnanimous and selfless than what we assume.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Ariel Tejera Feb 15, 2017

Before Trump's election, and even before Brexit, the term Globalization was related to world trends, such as Globalization of trade, finance, industry, climate change, demographic growth, internet phones, social networks, ebola outbreaks, accelerated technical innovation in all fields, etc. Some argue that manufacturing is itself disappearing. Then came Brexit, and after some confusing weeks the culprits emerged being the global citizens, and immigrants. Interesting times ... now the issue is an old dilemma: how to whip the messengers.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Paul Daley Feb 14, 2017

Is Rodrik calling for anything more than another verse of "Kumbaya?"

Yes, global citizens should be good national citizens, but you can make the same point about members of ethnic, religious, racial and gender groups that love their fellow men but hate America, or Europe, or the UN.

The fact is that we all hate each other and we all have to work together. That's life.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Feb 13, 2017

Dani Rodrik warns global citizens against shirking national duties towards their fellow citizens, arousing suspicion and resentment. In October 2016, at the Conservative party conference, Theresa May enraged many with the words: “If you believe you’re a citizen of the world, you’re a citizen of nowhere.” She went further, chastising them: “You don’t understand what the very word ‘citizenship’ means.” Critics hear “echoes of 1933” in her speech, which are reminiscent of the Nazis’ rhetorical move of using the term “rootless cosmopolitan” to describe a “Jew”.
The author says, "May’s statement strikes a chord," as there is "an essential truth" about a bunch of well-travelled individuals, who have distanced themselves from their "compatriots," when working and living abroad. Since these expats have lost touch with everyday life back home, they no longer share the same destiny or suffer the same fate, losing the trust of their compatriots. It explains why some 800,000 British expats thought to live in Europe were not allowed to vote in the EU referendum last June, because the "Leave camp" feared that these people would oppose a Brexit.
The word "citizen" in the Oxford dictionary defines “a legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth.” However citizenship is a social contract between a government and its people - a legal status protected by "an established polity." The author criticises May's concept of “global citizenship,” saying while countries "have such polities; the world does not." At the end of the day, every person who isn't stripped of his/her nationality is a citizen of somewhere, even if he/she doesn't live there physically.
As "global citizenship" is as abstract as Esperanto, our world today is a global village, thanks to technological revolutions in communications and economic globalization. While citizens of different nationalities group together, having "multiple, overlapping identities," the author says, they shouldn't – "and need not – crowd out parochial or national responsibilities." May rejects cosmopolitanism, and she expects all citizens to respect the bonds and obligations that make their society work. That means a commitment to the men and women who live around them.
Here we see the divergence of incentives and interest in issues of national or global relevance. "Global citizens worry that the interests of the global commons may be harmed when each government pursues its own narrow interest." But we live in a interconnected world, and we are bound together by interdependence and cooperation. Issues like "climate change or pandemics.... taxes, trade policy, financial stability, fiscal and monetary management," are not only of global concern, they can also affect domestic decision-making.
The author points out that policy failures of a certain country, like protectionism, could be harmful. He says the absence of "open economic borders, sound prudential regulation and full-employment policies" is a result of "poor domestic governance" and not "a lack of cosmopolitanism." He warns against being too cosmopolitan, because global citizens tend to get carried away by "their lofty goals" and may end up finding "an excuse for shirking their duties toward their compatriots."
The author proposes a pragmatic course to navigate international waters - "to live in the world we have, with all its political divisions, and not the world we wish we had. The best way to serve global interests is to live up to our responsibilities within the political institutions that matter: those that exist." This is a rebuke to populists, revisionists and anarchists who want to tear down the current world order, seeking to create a new one. Indeed, it doesn't matter where you came from, it's where you live and pay taxes that matters. It can't go wrong with a sense of belonging there.
- M M Feb 13, 2017
  
  JVH, regarding your concluding paragraph, i"it does not matter where you came from, it is is where you live and pay taxes", in this case what is the duty of governments, to continue with their policies of pushing people away from their habit (e.g Greece, Italy, Spain,etc..) or to create jobs and limit the mobility of people and creating a sense of belonging and security? A sense of community and real contributions to these communities and not to the markets where the loyalty of the politicians seems to be.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robert Bruce Feb 12, 2017

Professor Rodrik and Teresa May both fail to discern the difference between two fundamentally opposed visions of what "Global Citizenship" means.

The first group, fully deserve many of the accusations made against the "liberal elite" because they see the idea of Global citizenship as a way of EVADING social responsibilities. These are rich individuals who use Global off-shore tax havens to avoid democratically agreed taxes. They are the top managers who got rich while outsourcing jobs, without any political dialogue about how we would retrain and compensate the hard working people who lost out at home. They are the economists and trade negotiators who enabled a Global "race to the bottom" creating "Victorian" standards of health and safety, environmental protection, and working conditions in developing countries. Their aims were to successfully grow the overall Global economy and multiply their own personal (offshore) wealth, whilst denying any RESPONSIBILITY for the effects of their actions on the communities which have been undermined or poisoned by their policies. I believe this is the group that Teresa May should rightly have been attacking in her speech.

However, there is another very different view of what Global citizenship means. This vision still values our national identities and looks to national governments to play the leading role in building stronger and more sustainable societies. However, it is also a view that EXPANDS our view of how far our RESPONSIBILITIES extend to the needs of a Global community. These Global citizens recognise that we cannot stop Global warming without coordinated action between all countries of the World. To us it is obvious that no national government can end the corruption and robbery of tax havens on its own, as any regulator that acts unilaterally will simply lose out as funds flow to competing countries. Pragmatic Global citizens recognise the serious threat of disease epidemics like Ebola, that start in the World's poorest communities, but can rapidly spread to wealthy countries with devastating effects. The threat to us of these diseases can only be controlled effectively once every country in the World has systems of universal healthcare capable of treating and preventing such outbreaks. We can only move forward together to deal with these threats once we evolve beyond "them and us" thinking, and recongise the reality - that there is only one "us".

More fundamentally I aspire to the concept of "Global Citizenship" because I believe that the basic human rights of any individual should not depend on which country they were born in, or where they happen to live. Can it be right that we care if a British woman is raped in London, but not if the victim is a Muslim refugee in a Calais camp ? Do the lives of the one million men, women and children killed in the Middle East since 2003 really count any less than the 3000 international and American workers killed in the 9-11 attacks ? Why do we still seem to accept an international anarchy that subjugates the PERSONAL SECURITY and universal human rights of Global Citizens, to the political priorities and so-called NATIONAL SECURITY interests of powerful nations. This ongoing injustice goes to the heart of a view that sees the concept of "Global Citizenship" as reasserting the rights and freedoms of individual citizens that cannot and should not ever be ignored or abused by ANY national government. It is a view that wants Global cooperation, not to further enrich and add to the power of Global corporations, but to work towards the Global Goals agreed by the United Nations in 2015 for every country in the World. It is fundamentally a view that seeks to end injustice by improving the lives of individual citizens, and at last create a "Global Race" in which we can all be winners.

“When we contemplate the future of Global progress we should all recall the words of Aneurin Bevan who wrote "Not even the apparently enlightened principle of the 'greatest good for the greatest number' can excuse indifference to individual suffering. There is no test for progress other than its impact on the individual.”

Robert P Bruce - author www.TheGlobalRace.net
- M M Feb 12, 2017
  
  Robert, how can T. May justify her statement when the Head of State is the Head of the Commonwealth, one of the largest global organisation? T. May has shown total disregard to history, to the wellbeing of the British people, local and expatriates, total disregard to any common sense. She decided to take the British people for a ride on a roller coaster and she seems to be the only one that is enjoying it. Globalisation existed since ancient times and shall always exist in one form or another.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Feb 11, 2017

I am going to do something I rarely care enough to do anymore I am going to make a personal rather then a general statement. Allow me to present what globalization and global elites have done for me and I am hardly unique many could make similar statements.

Once upon a time I had a job that paid approximately 53K a year not great but not bad. Then my supervisor came in and announced the company had contracted with an Indian outsourcing firm and in order to collect our severance pay we would not only have to train our replacements but we would have to sign a gag agreement that if we broke would be resolved by binding arbitration with arbitrators picked by the company. Gave me a real love for H1b's I must say. Jobs they can't find natives for as our global citizens proclaim or Americans just can't work that cheap choose your belief.
My next job after about 3 years they packed up the hole machines terminals and all and shipped it to Mexico well not all the employees got 2 weeks pay and a wish for good luck.
My next job well that one they shipped to Vietnam I will say my employer was relatively generous in the severance pay a months pay plus a week for every year of service. Of course the department of Workforce solutions suggestion for my future was go back school take on a load of debt and hope I can pay the loans before they take the loans out of my social security. My 401k and savings being long gone. These days I have a job paying 27k a year. So tell me professor what has globalization and global citizens done for me except make my life worse in the name of helping the 3rd world out of poverty? Thus endeth the lesson Professor what you take away from it is up to you.
- Erin Harris Feb 18, 2017
  
  Bingo, Sir. During the past 40 years, billions of lives the world over have been casually wrecked by those who believe (as we read in this piece) that "in most economic areas – taxes, trade policy, financial stability, fiscal and monetary management – what makes sense from a global perspective also makes sense from a domestic perspective."
  
  No, mostly they don't make a lick of sense domestically. And every one of these claims is laughably false in the light of reality: "... (C)ountries should maintain open economic borders, sound prudential regulation and full-employment policies... to enlarge the domestic economic pie."
  
  For a long time, I thought of myself as a "global citizens" because living in other countries delighted me. Now they're all victims of this neoliberal cant and the only thing that might give real people a decent future is a revival of national will and REAL populism (Bernie's, not Trump's lying dreck that just shovels more money and power to the top).
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- D. Carter Feb 17, 2017
  
  Thank you for writing this my friend.While our U.S government was bailing out bankers all over the world , it did nothing to help those of us here who were losing our biggest asset and our home. Let's face it global capitalist receive much more respect than the workers in any country - and their only allegiance is to make deals with those their class. They are more than happy to move from one country to another to ensure even more profits for themselves , even tho' they already have more than they could ever spend in a lifetime.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
vivek iyer Feb 10, 2017

Rodrik makes 4 mistakes and these 4 mistakes vitiate his thesis and render it vacuous.
1) Citizenship need not involve 'deliberative democracy'- which might be a recipe for what the ancient Greeks called stasis, or what we might term McKelvey Chaos. Hirschman 'Exit' and Tiebout Sorting are sufficient and, under increasing Technological Uncertainty, probably necessary conditions as well. There is no particular reason why small City States should not compete for citizens or, indeed, why Lijphart type consocialism should not be viable.
2) A Citizen of a Republic or Commonwealth is not so very different from the Subject of a King or of a Theocracy with no specific demense of its own. What matters if there is a 'viculum juris'- a bond of law, such that rights are linked to incentive compatible remedies on the basis of reciprocity. The subjects of a progressive Monarchy may enjoy greater felicity than the citizens of an anarchic Republic. Similarly, a 'Millet' system- where the territorial vinculum juris is mediated by a transnational Theocracy- may be superior. Indeed, something like it may already obtain albeit in a Secular sense.
3) Economics does not teach that countries should maintain 'open economic borders'- it suggests something like a Henry George theorem in respect of all rents such that superior Tiebout sorting occurs. In practice that is what we have seen. 'Sound prudential regulation' is meaningless. Hannan Consistent regret minimization isn't. But this commits one to valuing increased diversity in Tiebout Models- which entails diverse risk profiles. Nobody should maintain 'full-employment' policies. They are silly. We don't know in advance how much Knightian Uncertainty is going to obtain and therefore how high Search Unemployment, or other drivers of Mobility, should be. Similarly, 'enlarging the domestic economic pie' is either meaningless because it could mean anything at all, or else it may be a bad thing, not a good thing at all for strategic and dynamic reasons- including the sort Sir Partha Dasgupta bangs on about.
4) Cosmopolitanism is bad because it assumes the absence of the preference aggregation & Second Best type problems the Polis is designed to solve. It is likely to be based on Preference Falsification and anachronistic availability cascades and involve rent-dissipation by its supposed champions. Saying things like 'the need has never been greater for a sense of a shared human fate' is simply silly- unless you are a pedagogue or a politician who is being paid to say meaningless or silly things. There is no shared human fate. There are winners and losers. Evolution is real- it is associated with open problems and fruitful Research Programs. Bien pensant thinking is not real thinking- it is high flown guff designed to capture a small rent from a collapsing Credentialised Ponzi scheme.

The best way to serve global interests is NOT to live up to our responsibilities within the political institutions that exist. We should run away from institutions whose vinculum juris involve more onerous duties in return for less substantial entitlements and migrate towards better Schelling focal points in which repeated games give rise to better Aumann signalling Institutions which, in turn, develop a vinculum juris we might wish to abscond from.

Rodrik is an economist. He knows everything he has written here is either meaningless or mischievous. Why has he taken the trouble to do so? The answer is 'Rothbard's Law'- Economists increasingly specialise in what they are worst at. Why do they do so? They convince themselves that the Weltgeist is under the tutelage of whatever straw man they erected to motivate their polemics and sell their increasingly worthless books.
- Petey Bee Feb 11, 2017
  
  wow, so many references. fun looking them up :-)
  "consociational democracy" sounds like something to aspire to.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Marc Freed Feb 10, 2017

While few of us would choose to run the risk of living outside some kind of collective polity defined at a minimum by geography, a still small but increasing number of us including you recognize that we are defined today as much by our skills and interests as we are by our residence. This trend will grow unless we choose to erect walls to prevent it from doing so - the Brexit/Trump approach. Those of us who take a positive view of it must figure out how to extend that view to the vast majority of our fellow Earthlings who have not experienced or recognized any benefit from an extra-national view of themselves.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
stephan Edwards Feb 10, 2017

Of course we don't trust "Global" citizens, Why should we ? Has the 40 years has proved beyond any doubt whatsoever to people of the working class that no Global Citizen gives a damn for them. You "Global" citizens have sacrificed our interests for the "greater good" note our interests not yours you folks don't sacrifice your interests just ours. So no we don't trust you "Global" citizens, you don't give a damn for our interests but you are happy to sacrifice them for some supposed greater good!
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Velko Simeonov Feb 10, 2017

It appears to me that the professor has hit the nail on the head. This really is the main driver for the voter disillusionment and growing suspicion of the ruling elites. If the issue is not addressed soon what comes next will make electing someone like Trump seem like a minor distraction.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jerry F. Hough Feb 10, 2017

The issue is the old one of Marx. In 1982 the Dow was 750. It is now 25 times higher. There are different meaures of income, including public services, but Krugman--a real spokesman of the income group that reads his paper--puts it at around 40% during that period. Under Obama the market tripled from the bottom, while wages of the bottom 90% declined.

Everyone knows a major reason for that is that the policy elite of both parties--one party that seems dominated by Goldman and the other Citigroup (Elizabeth Warren--NYT 12/14/14--said it had "unprecedented" control of the Obama Administration)-- deliberately promoted an infinite supply of wages through outsourcing and unlimited immigration.

Average people don't care about Gini curves and inegalitarianism. They want their standard of living to rise and they want to be treated with respect.

How can it conceivably be that the nominee of the left-wing party says that the average American voted against a Goldwaterite who promises no change in a time of soaring profits and flat wages only because they are racist and nativist? How can the NYT take that position. That is 1785 in France, 1845 in Germany, 1915 in Russia, and 1930 in Germany. The educated elite (and $125,000 family income is top 25% or the rich by any reasonable definition) has lost all sense of historical perspective.

Dani should not speak of duty and responsibility. He should talk of self-preservation of an elite. For over 10 years, 70% of the population has said the US is on the wrong path. Obama promised change you can believe in. He lied. Trump promised even greater change. Wall Street is convinced he lied. Let us hope not.

Globalization may be great, but the poor and middle income must be convinced they benefit from it. All the fruits of globalization cannot go to the owners of the means of production--that is, the 20-25% who own mutual funds, which now includes government officials whose pensions depend on it--and wages must not be kept deliberately low so profits and the market can be higher.

They are many ways to do this--a Canadian health system ostentatiously financed in large part by taxes that are related to foreign earnings, the end of work permits to force Silicon valley to train its work force a la Germany and Japan, the replacement of the evil Social Security tax with a VAT that hits the consumers at $125,000 as Ted Cruz proposes, the end of 13 years of war promoted by anti-Vietnam war demonstrators who all are now Westmorelands who think peace with the status quo Putin is bad--and say it with a McCarthyism as bad as Joe's in 1950. One can go on and on

Above all a return to the democracy of FDR by creating a left wing party that was the answer to Marx's revolution of 1848. The end of the denial of the right to vote to the poor by ensuring they are non-citizen. The left-wing party must get over its hysteria and total negativism towards someone who promises changes. It must think of measures to propose that will ensure its own survival. And then it can have the feel good feelings that it is also doing its duty.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Feb 10, 2017

Dani, you raised a very important topic that goes into the heart of what humanity has been living since the digital age picked up pace. For a start, quoting a statement from an Unelected (but rather autocratically appointed) political leader is wrong. Most dictionaries and reference materials are now somewhat out of date, a bit like the global, regional and local governance systems, they are all out of date. The word Citizen comes from the antiquities and more specifically from Roman times originating from the word City or Cite. If one takes science as a basis, and based on the DNA of the majority of humans we are all citizens of the world, there is not a single being out there that is 100% pure, may be not even the tribes in the Amazon jungle are pure. The British and other Monarchies are mixed and not 100% pure. Legally, the word Citizen can be interpreted in many ways depending on the laws of the land, but there again these laws are in the most cases outdated or are being changed all the time to make them compatible with other acts of laws, such as Human Rights, etc. In brief, we are all Citizens of the World, including the one that believes otherwise.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

http://prosyn.org/XAMrJHd/zh;

全球公民，国家逃避者

To continue reading, subscribe now.

New Comment

Email this piece to a friend

Contact us

Europe’s Power Deficit

The Looming Taiwan Crisis

What Next for Venezuela?

Taking Vaccines the Last Mile

The Road From Thatcherism

A Very Greek Brexit?

Science and Subterfuge in Economics

What Will Succeed GDP?

Cookies and Privacy

Log in/Register