Are democratic egalitarians bound to endorse statism? It seems so, since they insist on democratic reciprocity, and no such relation exists in the global realm. Would it not, then, be inconsistent to endorse both cosmopolitanism and democratic egalitarianism? Democratic egalitarians seemingly face a dilemma: either they accept statism, or they must explain why not. Luck egalitarianism, by contrast, seemingly grounds more straightforwardly the claim that justice is global in scope. My thesis is twofold: first, I show that democratic egalitarians can escape the dilemma, to the effect that, as such, they need be committed neither to statism nor to cosmopolitanism, and that luck egalitarians are not as shielded from the dilemma as it might seem. Second, I defend the plausibility of global social egalitarianism against both statist variants of democratic egalitarianism and luck egalitarianism, and suggest a form of division of labor between domestic and global justice.

中文翻译：

---

社会平等与全球社会

民主平等主义者一定会支持国家主义吗？似乎是这样，因为他们坚持民主互惠，而在全球范围内不存在这种关系。那么，同时支持世界主义和民主平等主义难道不是不一致的吗？民主平等主义者似乎面临两难境地：要么接受国家主义，要么必须解释为什么不接受。相比之下，运气均等主义似乎更直接地支持正义在全球范围内的主张。我的论点是双重的：首先，我表明民主平等主义者可以摆脱困境，因此，他们既不需要致力于国家主义，也不必致力于世界主义，并且幸运平等主义者不会像可能的那样避开困境似乎。第二，