Just as the idea that direct democracy leads to freedom is a fallacy, the idea, too, that mankind should be split in numerous small countries is erroneous. 10, or even 100, small countries would be much easier to swallow by a reactionary superpower than one large country under the guidance of a party with an enlightened vision.
Furthermore, while local demagogues would often find it easy to get democratically elected in small countries by exploiting ethnicity-based hatred and envy, corresponding simplistic rhetoric is less likely to have the desired effect in a large country with less homogeneity. On the contrary, a single party with an explicit ideology and cadres of considerable intellectual capacity would have an advantage on such a turf.
And because there typically is less cultural divergence in small countries, there also is a tendency that such countries may become more restrictive of alternative uses of personal freedom.
In recent years, the example of Indonesia which, after Suharto implemented widespread regional and local autonomy, has shown that decentralization is counterproductive to personal freedom.
Both anarchistic illusionism ("as weak a government as possible") and democratic dogmatism ("free elections must be the basis for a society with the highest degree of personal freedom for its citizens") gets us nowhere, as history has shown that both paths do not result in societies in which people live in optimal safety with an optimal degree of personal freedom.
For these are the values we strive for. Not an abstract legitimacy of government.
THE BASIS FOR HUMAN SOLIDARITY
THE SIZE OF GOVERNED COMMUNITIES
CONTENTS OF PERSONAL FREEDOM: PRIVACY AND SECRECY
THE BENEFITS OF RELATIVE POVERTY