Consistency, globalization, and independent states

It strikes me as odd that it is always the same people who advocate for a strong INTERNATIONAL governing body like the UN, and strong respect for the wishes of coalitions of nations, are also the same people who advocate for an end to global economies (globalization) and are the same peopel who press for independence for small states, like Tibet, Taiwain, and Palestine.

There seems to be a minor sort of inconsistency there. Either you want a larger group controlled by a smaller group, so then you can have the UN controlling everyone, or you can have smaller groups controlled by a larger group of people.

You can't have it both ways and still expect to make sense.

I am all for the latter, myself. The more states - the better. What benefit is gained by having a large international tyrant in charge of everything? Of course when you throw away the only thing that makes sense to have internationally, namely an economy, what is left?