@Alligator Ed @Alligator Ed

. . . ends hostilities between countries and allows free travel across borders, I'm inclined to think that small countries, even petty dictators that some of those would harbor, can do less damage than one big country or Grand Dictator. Smaller entities would have fewer material or manpower resources for war. For peace they'd have greater incentive, moreover, to work with each other to obtain resources that any one small country would lack. The big countries have everything they need to obliterate any entity that resisted domination.

The problem is, the big countries we have now are thus those most able to resist devolution into smaller nations. Which is why we are having this discussion.

#1 Perfect example is the balkanization of the Balkan states. Since Tito died, numerous religious and territorial wars have erupted in the region. Petty dictators now replace the grand dictator Tito. Without having any concrete support for the following statement, I think subdivisions of stable countries lead to greater factional fighting; cloaked in whatever disguises or excuses may be invented.

The original New World Order dreamt about for the League of Nations was ending hostilities between countries and allowing free interchange of travel and international cordiality of relations. Now the Greed Monsters perverted this noble idea of peace into one of rampant, indiscriminate pillaging of the many in favor of the few. This seed of greed has always been present. Empires rise and fall throughout history. Ours is no exception. We are hastening our own demise through unwise and often brutal policies.

Example of weakening the social fabric is the short-sighted, bottom-line oriented unaffordability of post-secondary education. Student loans become so burdensome as to prevent the recipients of such loans to repay them for many years, if ever. The high cost of education plus the diminishing prospect of jobs in the chosen field dissuades many from even attempting higher education, despite having both talent and desire for greater knowledge. In this we see a gradual "dumbing down" of the population, which in the past few decades has begun at primary grade levels. An uneducated population cannot sustain itself to high degrees of technological function. In this the US is failing miserably.

@enhydra lutris
that he was somewhat wealthy, a whale in Vegas parlance. Could involve the loss of a large sum of money, either through the "high end hostess" or bad divorce settlement. To some people, losing money is a traumatic experience.
To me, water is life. To some people it's money.

#3
might be as simple as the configuration of the room. It appears that he might have been using a bump stock. So, standing, using the side window frame as support assist, or sitting and using the side, bottom or corner, it may have been the area most easily target for the purpose of laying down a quasi concentrated field of fire. I'm pretty sure that it will all be guesswork from here on in, barring a surprise discovery of some sort since his brother and, seemingly, also his lady friend, haven't been able to cast any light on the matter.

@QMS
such as efficiency, economies of scale, vertical and horizontal integration of production, tariffs and such is the whole socio-cultural nation state model. In my opinion, of course.

One can imagine a geographic area full of subdivisions, each largely home to a particular ethno-cultural group, each with its individual history, and, very likely, with historical beefs, grudges and other differences among them.

They could decide to form a large, republican or democratic union, working cooperatively and with respect for each other to maximize their enjoyment of life, well being and personal fulfillment equally for all. That would be a mother of a chore, but arguably they would all benefit, and everybody would get the opportunity to enjoy all the products of their diversity as well as the cross pollinisation that would occur. Can today's humans pull that off?

Otherwise, they form various lesser states, perhaps one each, or maybe some one each and some a small non-coerced combinations. They then could:
1) Form some loose confederation dedicated to peaceful resolution of disputes and to maximizing well being and all that or
2) Remain fiercely independent, though perhaps entering into some specific purpose treaties selectively between and among some or all participants.

Should they pick #2, how soon would they devolve into a cacaphony of warring states? It is this threat of some sort of mass of warring states that is the real problem and issue. "Balkanization" would not have the overtones and connotations that it does had all of the Balkan states got along fabulously well with each other and worked cooperatively on larger projects and found mutually beneficial ways of sharing resources, etc. We, of course, do not expect that and hence abjure the formation of such independent enclaves.

Lacking full integration that involves both respect for but also mutual enjoyment and appreciation of cultural differences, the real problem is conflict and conflict resolution. Centuries of history have led us to assume that the solution is ever more and more inclusive governing bodies, which always seem to tend to a strong executive model, and yet the Swiss Federation would appear to show us a different model that is both viable and sustainable.

#4 but the times, they are a changing. Once was a series of circumstances, which you described very well, and now we have something different. So the concerns and causes have a different focus. Catalonia may have some issues with Spain going way back. The point is now they have said enough. This isn't about the EU or global control as much as it is a regionalised people that perceive a better future without the help of the larger union, imo.