I have not read all the posts here, so I apologize if I repeat things already said.
The "citizen of the world" mantle is George Soros' explanation for his funding of leftist political efforts in the US and other places. That Barry O and Soros are connected, through ACORN and directly, is a matter of simple fact. That is to say, even the simple, presented with the facts, can agree the two are "fellow travelers".
I am unsure when this grandiose appellation came into use, but it appears to me the mantle of "citizen of the world" is an Orwellian joke.
There is no world to be a citizen of, unless one flatters oneself with the idea they understand what "the world" and "the people" need, that they first understand that totality and second care enough to lay down their lives for that cause.
My problem is, to take a recent example, I cannot imagine Barry O missing a meal so a waitress oppressed by an oil company can eat. It's a great line, that he's going to fight for the waitress agaonst the oil company, but reduce his lifestyle as a result? I think not. He is not of the same class as that waitress, if in fact he really knows one.
Anybody who represents they understand the needs of billions of people and should be entrusted with the mechanisms to see their vision to fruition has a self-approval rating that constantly exceeds 100%. Whether they are certifiable and should be confined is a consideration, but such hubris does raise the question of mental balance, the firmness of a grasp on reality. Theatre is nice, but it isn't where the rest of us live.
I would further state that every despot has always presented his reign as something for the betterment of "the people", almost universally despised by the despot but for whom he acts in benevolence. Look at Robert Mugabe. Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Ho, Pol Pot. Humanitarians all, at least by their own humble admissions.
The hard data are that the only people who have laid claim to such enlightenment are the most vicious butchers of their fellow man, against those who didn't go along with the vision, or simply got in the way, as in Mao's Great Leap Forward. Are such "enlightened" or "progressive" people those who we should allow to chart our personal futures?
The 20th century saw about a hundred million souls killed for such messianic visions, mostly in the last half and as historian Paul Johnson would say when "the power of the state to help the governed increased little, but the power to hurt the governed increased exponentially" (that is my recollection of the substance of the quote from Modern Times; we can debate the exact words if you wish).
What will we see in this century? And how do you think we can make this century better than the last? I don't think the path is through emoting about "change".
I don't think the path is through restricting choices so that people have nothing to do but make the "right" choices about diet, the car they drive, how they get to work, the work they choose by omission or comission.
Maybe some savants on this site can re-educate me about my views. Certainly open to discussion.