In all my years of studying cosmopolitanism, I have heard only one joke about it – or apparently about it, since the joke was told within an event exploring the topic of cosmopolitanism – and it was a grim joke. In the 1930s, a German Jew is looking desperately for a country of exile. He enters a shop and asks for a globe. After having searched on the globe without success, he asks the shopkeeper: ‘Do you have another globe?’ According to the scholar who included the joke in his talk, this joke gives expression to the nightmare of a world without alternatives and cautions against the notion of a global state, since in a global state no place of exile would exist anymore, and there would be no salesperson to ask for another globe. The joke reiterates the ‘despotism’ and ‘no exit’ criticisms formulated by innumerable theorists rejecting the idea of a world state. The fact that I happened to hear only one joke about cosmopolitanism – and that a grim one – may point to the fact that cosmopolitanism is a very serious topic. However, quite frequently, when the idea of a World Republic is advanced, there is laughter: theorists laugh at the naivety and idealism of those advancing it. Then laughter is replaced by fear since, in their naivety, these authors do not see the threats that their theoretical endeavours are allegedly posing, and the laughing–fearing theorist feels responsible to point to the dangers and to prevent them. But who exactly laughs at the idea of a World Republic, who is afraid of it and why?

‘DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER GLOBE?’

Therefore, who laughs and why? Under the auspices of the joke about another globe, let's see what is laughable about the idea of a World Republic. Cosmopolitan theorists can be self-critical and they can laugh (at) themselves. Obviously, there is no choir of theorists laughing perennially in unison at those advancing a World Republic and which the selfcritical cosmopolitan theorist could join. These theorists deride the idea in several lines, and then move further by expressing fears concerning the dangers that these theoretical endeavours pose.