Up until lately I've been of the opinion that if I had to live under a government, then the smaller and more local the better. If I can't be self governing, then let me at least be governed in the smallest polity possible.
My IBIL, among others, has made me start to rethink my position. He favors more local control because he resents the federal governments' interference in authoriratian measures taken by states, eg civil rights legislation, ending private slavery, protecting folks from discrimination, etc. He sees local rule as a chance to establish an authoritarian dream state. He's not alone, either.
How can it be that raving authoritarians and libertarians both yearn for local control with such differing expectations? Why in the hell did I ever think that local control would mean more freedom for me? My neighbors have shown an easy willingness to tax the shit out of me and impose all manner of burdens on me with the limited political influence they now exercise. If they had even more power, I'm almost certain they'd use it not to protect my liberties but to keep me from exercising a lot of them. And I'd have no recourse but to flee to what I might vainly hope would be a more liberty loving polity, if I were allowed even to do that. Doubtless, the thugs who controlled ministates would collude to deal with troublemakers like me.
I am beginning to think that One World Government is the way to go. Here's my reasoning, inspired by alcohol and anithistamines: if war is the health of the state, and there is only one state, then that state can't have war and won't be robust. If there are no national security issues, then all issues will be domestic and less subject to hysteria and secrecy. If there are no countries to be proud of except one, then patriotism will not work its insidious black magic on the minds of the governed. No borders mean no need for border control or immigration departments.
I want some day to be able to accuse people I disagree with of being "unterran". That's my right as an earthling.