Quote Originally Posted by Soulforged
Not really. You already are an human, as such from this perspective you're entitled to some rights. The Cosmopolitan Certificate is more simbolic, as I said, a simbolic way of formalizing that Status.
Then the answer remains no - symbolic status such as this are worth absolutely nothing.

*What does "tap-danced" means?*
An answer that does not address the actual question.


Wide world anarchy would be something different. Perhaps I should define it to let the differences show up. A world wide anarchy would suppose a world wide federation of little cooperatives (wich is exactly what Bakunin wanted), this cooperatives should end with politic nationalism (wich means making nationalism a matter of state and also identifying the nation with the State), the cooperatives should rule by themselves in an horizontal plane, the cooperatives should also be united to form this federation wich only supposes a cooperation between the cooperatives and not a world wide State, the cooperatives would lack of any organizated or sistematized political organization and of course any law. Now the main element is the lack of State, wich is what I also suppose in my proposition. However if you look at the actual configuration of international society today, you'll see that even when there's a vast legal frame, collection of principles and practice of a variety of customs, there's no world wide State. Why is this? Because it lacks of one of the main characteristics of the State as it is: coertion. And that still stands for what I'm describing. Imagine it as the same you see today, but with a document/instrument that says "I'm an human, therefore I'm a citizen of the world". If you see more than simbolism there then we've a problem.
I would suggest that your definition of cosmopolitan then is not consistent with the current meaning of the world, nor is your definition of anarchy consistent with your attempt at defining cosmopolitan as a purely symbolic measure. Your mixing your apples and oranges together and attempting to convince me that they are really bananas.


NOTE: The form of anarchy described above is, in a nutshell, only what Bakunin and his followers say. There are other forms of anarchism, wich are in some ways also imposible to practice, one of them is communism, wich I'm not suggesting either, and would mean a kind of return to the natural state and a community of goods. Not all anarchism supposes community of goods.
Which also demonstrates well why anarchy as a political system has not been successful in the modern world, where men no longer formed societies consisting of wondering nomadic hunter-gathers of ancient times. Anarchy is a failed political movement in the modern era of man.