[Dante Hicks]

QUOTE=JonnyBGood]Indeed but then we're back to questions over how states should be decided upon. Banging on about self-determination is missing the point. States which don't fear their citizens are probably more likely to undertake policies damaging to them. As V says people shouldn't fear their governments, governments should fear their people.[/quote]I'm not sure how bigger governments are weaker though, or how the citizens of a (theoretically) more representative state are less likely to rebel/oppose government tyranny. Unless you mean a more diverse state is more likely to avoid despotic governments in the first place (which could be true).

Self-determination can't necessarily be elevated to the position of general rule, but it does serve well as a guiding principle. The issue with Scotland (and Northern Ireland, to an extent) is that the population does not seem to actually want to be independent. With Northern Ireland there's obviously issues around the gerrymandering of the borders, but then it's not clear if the south wants unification either for reasons Achilles mentioned.

OK, Libertarianism 101 : Power is located wherever possible at the individual. Where there are some sort of shared interest which is managed collectively then surely we would want to organise this collective management in a manner which most people can agree with. If East Springfield feel they can organise rubbish collection better then the Springfield Municipality, why would we oppose that? Sure, there are interests where a privileged minority might want to leave a wider state to escape the burden of it's poorer neighbours, but that's more of an issue of solidarity, and right-libertarians don't care about that sort of thing anyway (presumably).