Unity without Tyranny?

James Madison, in his NOTES of the debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, records Alexander Hamilton, in addressing how the proposed Federal Government will protect the interests of the smaller states, as saying:

"The more close the Union of the States, and the more complete the authority of the whole, the less opportunity will be allowed the stronger Sates to injure the weaker."

I thought about this statement in the context of both the model of the American Colonies and the current nation-state model. Do we settle for a loose federation of competing power-brokers? Do we give too much power and control to a government, only for the people to hold a revolution every 50 years, and replace an old government of despots with their despots? How do other nation-states regard the U.S.? One may not agree that the U.S. acted wisely, or even successfully protected it's interests, when it invaded Iraq because decision-makers, or decision-makers who empowered decision-makers, perceived Hussein as a threat. Regardless, using the "Alexander Hamilton Small-State Model," it is probable that other countries regard the U.S. as a large "state" protecting its interests unilaterally.

What about church? I have "gone on record" as saying that denominations, though some say are a sign of dis-unity, I SAY are a sign of Christ's Diversity. Even if the American Colonial State Model or the nation-state model do not easily apply to the worldwide church of Jesus Christ, wow does the church of Jesus Christ begin to unite or act in united fashion - or we in our congregations stay united - without a "state" holding tyranny over the other "states?"