Individualism is to nationalism as nationalism is to globalism. Anyone who opposes nationalism more vociferously than they oppose globalism is not an individualist, a libertarian, or an anarchist. Rather, they are collectivists, and they are starting from the erroneous presumption that everyone is equally and simultaneously entitled to the use of every rivalrous resource. This presumption is logically incoherent on its face. To even put forth the argument requires one to exclude others from the non-consensual use of his own body, thus constituting a performative contradiction.
Furthermore, if everyone was equally and simultaneously entitled to the use of every rivalrous resource, no one would be morally justified in excluding others from the use of anything - not even one's own body. There would be no such thing as trespass, theft, kidnap, rape, slavery or murder because all of these things presuppose that a scarce resource was accessed without the permission of its owner. Without the right to exclude, no one would own anything, and thus no one would need permission to do anything. Under such a code of conduct, physical aggression would always be the norm and the division of labor would become impossible.
This set of affairs would lead to more physical conflict over scarce resources than would be avoided, and would thus be antithetical to the very purpose of the property norms upon which individualism depends. When you take it to its furthest logical conclusions, collectivism is indistinguishable from aggressionism - especially from the perspective of the individual subjugated by it.
The greater the physical distance between the individual and the state's center of power, the greater the oppressive restrictions imposed on that individual through the physical aggression of the people calling themselves "the state".