What some of us discover about our fellow humans, which is not that surprising in retrospect, is that indoor-living, so-called, is an anathema to a percentage thereof.
Whereas I am able to get excited by the prospect of a penthouse or simply an apartment, and have lived in several, I met fellow travelers at Occupy Portland and other places that just couldn't abide being cooped up between the four walls of anything, which doesn't mean they'd eschew all manner of shelter. They just wanted to be free of certain types of restraints.
We don't have to look far to find long-running themes behind this longing for an open sky lifestyles. The crush of cities, especially during the advent of the industrial era, was especially noxious and toxic, and the Romantics rebelled, seeking a back to nature aesthetics that resonates with us today. Although classified a Transcendentalist, a post-Romantic movement, Thoreau's lifestyle at Walden Pond set a template for "off the grid" living.
However beyond not wanting to be cooped up in a high rise or even a suburban ranch style domicile, is not wanting the encumbrances of another system's bureaucracy, where "the other" in this case comprises all those "normies" who want to play-act being members of various nation-states. Some humans take a look at that whole game and would rather opt out. "No citizenship for me thank you" is their polite enough refusal to go along. Is it that the "right of citizenship" is actually something more mandatory than a right? A duty even? Is a person free to surrender citizenship without adopting another?
Certainly many people would love citizenship in a "real country" that gave them rights to visit other countries besides the real one. If you don't have enough documentation to cross any border whatsoever, then the game of borders will likely seem awfully onerous. You're denied citizenship and therefore even the human right to go somewhere else, where you won't be a citizen either. Once a person reaches adulthood without citizenship in any country, it's no piece of cake to finally find one.
What the United Nations might have done is come up with a catch-all default nation that anyone could choose if falling through the cracks otherwise. Plain Vanilla Nation (PVN) would at least provide enough documentation, e.g a passport and ID card, to merit taking out loans, buying property, booking passage. But no, that would have been too easy.
However, even with a PVN in place and/or much easier rules, a percentage of my fellow humans will prefer not to become citizens of any country. I'm thinking as a matter of human rights, their preferences should be respected.
However, the flip side is an individual does make waves and thereby builds up karma and it's unreasonable to grant a cloak of invisibility to someone who is going to be impacting planetary history, even if only in a small way (who's to judge?). That's why we give each other names, titles, roles, credentials: to keep records and let others predict what they're getting into, if they let so and so join their ranks.
So whereas I empathize with those wishing to escape citizenship in any nation, I'm not seeing "incognito mode" as a basic human right on the same level. Just because we don't record your nationality doesn't mean we can't open a file and register events along your timeline. You'll want a timeline too, for your own protection in some scenarios. You may work harder than most to not show up in files or on radars and I understand that's your preference.
Prompt: Gypsies sit around campfire, enjoying guitar. Some children are wearing VR goggles. HDTV screens glow through the windows of gypsy caravans. Moonlight. Horses.
