Doug - I like your attitude. You're the nicest, most reasonable Republican I know, and you have a pretty good sense of humor too. Your discussions with Carol about "world citizenship" have been intriguing. Accusing Carol of having said something is a perilous venture, as you have discovered, because Carol (a great friend of mine) has a better memory for what she has said at any given time than your average 50 people put together on this forum. Clinton will run on the Republican ticket before I develop as good a memory for what I may have said on the last 800 or so postings....
In all likelihood I have contradicted myself more than once, at least if taken out of context. What the hell, Dylan has contradicted himself too! Even Spaw has!
Anyway, you're right that there are no credentials at present for world citizenship. No papers, that is. There should be, but there aren't. That's because in the world at present there is a great state of disunity and anarchy between nations and groups of people.
Were there the same state of disunity in the USA, for example, there would probably be several shooting wars raging in various parts of the country at this very moment...state against state, county against county, even town against town. And there'd be very little that could be done about it, since there would be no overall authority or system of law governing the situation.
In such a circumstance the strong tend to dominate the weak with armed forces and police forces, and the weak tend to strike back with guerrilla warfare and acts of crime and terrorism (like the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, for example...or bandits in various parts of the world).
That's the problem in the world. Disunity and inequality.
Now in 1775 the American revolutionaries set about trying to first correct an unfair British taxation system, and then expanded that notion to building a new society, based on greater self-rule and equality (for the "in" group, at least...Indians and Blacks were not included). They succeeded in their revolution. Subsequently, they expanded the borders of that society to include greater numbers of people, and they made further efforts in establishing equality for all the people WITHIN THEIR OWN BORDERS.
When I wish for a world society, I am simply suggesting that the same progressive forces which formed nations out of much smaller groups of people, and established peaceful societies with human rights in those nations....that those forces should now reach for a greater vision, which is a world society with equal rights and protections for all people.
Notice that in most science fiction stories we envision other planets as having such a society. That's because it is the eventual logical development of an intelligent race on any planet.
Prior to its development you have a state of anarchy, and rule by raw power, which is precisely what we have now in the international scene.
To want to cling to that reality is understandable, because it's the one we're familiar with, but surely we are capable of better?
Why should anyone wish to arrest the process of history at say, the Dark Ages, or the Renaissance, or the Holy Roman Empire, or the present age...and just stay there?
A united world society is the next logical stage to human progress.
p.s. Clinton? Gotta love the guy. I miss Bill. He knew how to show people the "big stick" when they got out of hand! :-)