See Ensure The Rights of All — Medium http://buff.ly/1z38dkU
It would seem that this title is redundant. We say all are equal. We say rights are universal. Doesn’t it stand to reason that everyone is a citizen? It should but we need to think very carefully because citizenship is currently seen as a means of identifying someone with a particular nationality or state — it is a governmental designation that entitles one to the rights and protections of the nation or state it happens to be.
The entire current structure for refugees and immigration is based on an elaborate set of understandings that do harm to those who are not deemed to be citizens of a particular place. Because of the huge scale of the spaces covered, there is no chance for individual communities to have a voice in the treatment of persons who may be friends or even relatives, caught in the vortex of harm.
The answer to this in a cybercommunity is to confer citizenship on all who ask for it assuming they will abide by the rules of that particular community. In other words, citizenship will be exclusive to a cybercommunity but with clear parameters in terms of scope and authority.
The other answer, of course, is that all are and should be citizens of the world. We do not need a world government that lords it over all. We do need a global understanding and rules and laws that provide a matrix within which cybercommunities may grow as the basic units of a global quilt of democracy we hope will gradually be universal and perfect itself over time.
Eventually, the world should permit free transport and movement everywhere. A cybercommunity should be understood to be a finite and therefore limited locale. If a cybercommunity can accommodate 10,000 residents, it is under no obligation to add 100 more. If the population is shy a certain amount, that is the amount it can indicate in terms of willingness to accept new residents.
Citizenship for all is therefore a global ideal. To be a Russian would have nothing but an historical reality. It would not affect the right to be part of any cybercommunity anywhere that had room and any other conditions that were in fact legal and reasonable. For example if our hypothetical Russian was a medical doctor and a cybercommunity had a glut of medical professionals and therefore no likelihood of gainful employment for our friend, he might wish to walk on to another one where his expertise would be welcome. It is the local reality of a particular cybercommunity that spells the exact nature of citizenship, a reality that would end with one’s exit from the community.
Clearly then one would need and want some global evolving to begin to realize the vision being unwound here. Such evolving will be the result of a growing realization that the existence of nation states is an anachronism that holds residual dangers too ominous to permit, among them the almost certain occasion for war, international corruption and all evils attendant on present systems affecting immigrants and refugees.
You can see that citizenship, rather than being redundant, is central to a discussion about planning and designing a future. The plan of the world must be cybercommunities first, these small democracies as the essential polity.
The design of the world must redensify regions into cybercommunity clumps of at least 10,000. These communities can be clustered to conform with existing urban areas, provided they are distinct and bordered by green space that is used for agriculture and other social purposes like sports and natural exploration.
To be both a global citizen and a citizen of a cybercommunity is the ideal. It is also probable that one will be a citizen of many cybercommunities as the right to move freely is used.
Everyone a citizen? Yes. Of the world. Of whatever cybercommunity one lives in. We are talking a new world, people. We must. Today’s must become the world of which we speak.
From Planning and Designing a Good Future: What to Strive for and What to Avoid Stephen C. Rose: Kindle Store http://buff.ly/1DGYTIP