Okay, so I say, localization of government is the best complement to globalization of market. But, why? Well, in the old days---let's call it the tribal mode of social organization---what was consequential to you economically occurred within a 50 mile radius of where you were; and, most of that economic activity was performed by people with whom you had relations of blood, or close social bonds. There was strong, daily validation of the shared ethics and values, which in turn made for a cohesive, consensual society. People have quite deep blood memories of this way of life, and are evidently not ready to move past its psychic comforts in a great rush.
Now, as the market division of labor advances, what is consequential to you economically starts occurring in a complex network of transactions spanning vast geographic distances. The people who live in your immediate geographical area become more diverse due to mobility of capital and labor, and may not share your ethics or values. Another way to look at the same phenomenon is, you are liberated increasingly to locate yourself in a social environment that is not reinforced by mutual economic interest---that is, a social environment built on shared ethics and values primarily. When you achieve that you once again have the cohesive, consensual society that requires minimal government. This sort of spontaneous segregation in fact occurs quite naturally, and should not be impeded at all, let alone condemned or castigated.
Furthermore, the smaller the jurisdictional unit the more costly it is to impose within it limitations on market freedom. In other words, a libertarian tendency in law receives strong eoconomic validation. Thus, the best way to achieve both, the peace and the prosperity that people desire is to localize (and privatize) government in harmony with the globalization of the market. So, that's my best shot at a thumbnail sketch of the praxeolgoical view of the matter.
