Cosmopolitan

[Soulforged]

Then the answer remains no - symbolic status such as this are worth absolutely nothing.

The benefits that it gives you are already there, but it would serve as an instrument of proof only as bureaucracy goes.

I would suggest that your definition of cosmopolitan then is not consistent with the current meaning of the world...

That's interesting, what do you propose then.

nor is your definition of anarchy consistent with your attempt at defining cosmopolitan as a purely symbolic measure.

My definition of anarchy is perfectly consistent with anarchy, and cosmopolitan is not a measure is a conception of the human being.

Your mixing your apples and oranges together and attempting to convince me that they are really bananas.

First you should establish what's the apple and the orange in this case, and what's the banana too.

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.

If you think that natural state in politics is anything near nomadism then I fear we're talking about different concepts. The natural state I'm talking about only refers to the hypotetical moment inmediatly before the creation of the State.

The Articles of Confederation was a total failure in American history. The states refuse to follow Congress' laws; Congress, lacking in executive and judicial power, can do squat to enforce it.

You said bureaucracy. In an State wich has a bureaucracy as a form of government the only two necessary powers are the one wich administrates the persons and the one wich executes orders from that power, applies coaction and dictates. Judicial power is of no use because everything is determined in a summary way, sintactic. Imagine the movie "Brazil", that's what I'm talking about.

One could also consider the occasional failures of international treaties to be of the same effect. If the USA refuses to follow the Geneva Convention--which, sadly, it shows sign of trying to--then the United Nations can do squat about it.

And let's hope it remains that way. That's what it's called United Nations, a given State can remain linked to the pact if he wants or it can abandon it. But it's sad anyway...

I'm arguing from the assumption that cosmopolitan means something international, "beyond national sovereignty," or something of such nature.

Not necessarily. The concept of national sovereignty is irrelevant for the issue. The idea of the cosmopolitan has to do with the belonging of all humans or a given group of humans (for example: only the good ones) to an universal community in wich they're all equal and are subject to the same natural order. The concept of sovereignty in all its forms is far much more recent than the idea of the cosmopolitan.

Then that would abridged the legal status of many treaties. Many countries hold that their Constitution is above all other laws--sovereignty, by definition--and they adhere to international treaties only voluntarily. The treaties are made with such in mind.

Not necessarily. Sovereignty is an adjetive in this days given to a certain social order or State. The main idea is that this order shouldn't recognize in the same territory any other positive order superior to itself. Recognizing a parallel order isn't recognizing a superior order. My country also holds that idea in part of the doctrine, but other part of the doctrine is begining to say: the idea of the superiority of any of those orders is absurd. One is the pact to the people in the State the other is the pact made with other States and both are reprehensible, as such both have to be respected at the same level, even more if they constitute rights for the humans and not the citizens. There cannot be contradiction, wich means an armonic interpretation of both orders (constitutional and conventional) in a plane of equivalence.

That's why I'm saying that, for your original idea to have any practical use, it would require a worldwide governmental apparatus of some kind--a far-fetched possibility at the moment. Essentially, sovereignty will have to transfer from national level to global level; an arrangement virtually impossible to make. I deduct from your post that you want (practical) sovereignty to transfer back to the individual instead. That, frankly, doesn't work; you'll have to debate me on that point, if you disagree.

That's not what I'm saying. The idea of a sovereign individual is absurd. I'm talking about an official recognition of your pertenence to the human especies. As I said it was sarcastic in part. No need to create a super statal order to make that effective since the benefits that it gives should have been operative for years now in the countries wich signed certain pacts in good faith.

Side note: I guess being a citizen of no country (applied for US, at least three years away) makes me quite offended when a person claims something of a superior right--not just privilege--based on his or her citizenship alone, and make me something of a multi-culturalist also.

I understand your feelings and I'm arguing from the same position. I find that idea absurd in this days and it's not substantiated since we, as the human race, officialized this view of all humans are equal and have some inherent rights as such.