What took me a long time to understand is that you have to differentiate sharply between the formal rules of a state and the actual real-world freedoms available to an individual living within it. "Good governance" is actually incompatible with personal sovereignity, because by nature it means rules – whether you like them or not – are efficiently and strictly enforced. For example; a state with low corrpution and a clean legal system will impose severe penalties for minor infractions, wheras a "broken" country allows significant autonomy in daily life simply because rules are weakly enforced or not at all. So a state with institutional liberty but zero tolerance for deviation is a fail for personal liberty. In that sense, you also need to look at corruption in a more nuanced way: you must avoid states with predatory corruption at all cost (avoid even traveling there), while corruption as administrative slack can actually improve personal sovereignity. Example: a state with benign non-enforcement of laws (for example through small bribes or informal connections) can grant you more personal freedom because you bypass bureaucratic hurdles. However if freedom depends on bribery – predatory corrpution – you severely destroy personal sovereignity and create an environment of fear and unpredictability. With that being said: the highest degree of individual sovereignity is NOT found in the most orderly and legally "perfect" systems, but in those that grant individuals the biggest leeway to live according to their own choices. A seriously autonomy-minded individual, the most robust framework might be to seek legal protection of a strong state for one's capital, and a weak state for one's life.