Personally I love the idea. If it weren't for Lincoln deciding federal powers and centralized government were so important as to sacrifice the lives of his own people, we'd have been a lot closer to this ideal a long time ago...

Well... err... not really.

We all have grown accustom to a certain quality of life. Such as cheap, abundant gasoline, cable television, inexpensive access to water, and so on. This is largely based on the availability of resources. The US being such an expansive nation (expanding all the way to the Middle East), gets access to things that are unavailable to other nations simply they don't have the access to raw materials.

The regional distribution the WSJ is largely one based on politics. A bunch of smaller states running the show inhibits the flow of resources. Places like Texas and California (large land mass states) may fair OK, but they would lose out on other things that are unavailable.

There could be trade between the States -but then look at the EU, and realize that maybe it makes a little more sense to bind the groups together since we're trading and crossing the border all the time anyway.

So largely, beyond shaking your fist in the air and shouting, "Damn liberals" what's the economic advantage to paying tariffs on goods made in New England?

Personally, I think it sounds brilliant. I'm an anarchist, and the anarchists could make our country and the communists could make theres and so on and so forth. They would grow and shrink depending on demand of certain types of government. Some countries could offer to unite if it works.