I sat down (again actually, after a first attempt on the LL forums was devoured by a feral wi-fi hotspot) to write up some of my responses to what seems to me the central strategic issue in l'Affaire Preston, the question of whether or not breaking up power leads to weakening it, and found that William Gillis has addressed a good deal of what needs to be said. The references to economies of scale is elegant, and ought to be enough to get anyone started on additional analysis.
Arguably, we live in the grip of both micro- and macro-authoritarianisms at the moment, but that's just because even "the state" is not simply a problem of centralized power. State-power owes its persistence to its ability to incorporate more local power mechanisms. I think Will is right that there are certain advantages to living in a situation where micro- and macro-authoritarianisms at least partially cancel each other out.
The trick is to develop a kind of radical come-outerism that ultimately expands the various fields of freedom and opportunity for everyone, rather than letting presumably "irreconcilable" differences simply parcel out oppression. I am naturally sympathetic to some kinds of secession, but want to "come out" of the world of authority into a wider world, not a narrow enclave.