Interesting article you referenced. I find, from what I read, that Kirk, in some respects, might suffer the same delusion that many right-wing proponents of decentralization suffer. The ideas expressed by both seem to harken back to the good-old days of frontiers dominated by agrarian societies who make their own clothes and furniture and can't get good medical treatment for cholera and typhus. We are never going back there again. This idea of "rugged individualism" is gone.
The idea, as espoused by Ron Paul and supporters, for example, that hospitals ought rightly turn away sick and diseased patients is simply not workable and not tolerable. The universality of health care has done wonders to prevent epidemics in America. I can't fathom why these "rugged individuals" would ever want to leave untreated, contagious people without treatment so they can infect us in elevators, on the sidewalks, in the grocery stores and everywhere we encounter them. It's a laughable proposition. All a person has to do is go read some history on what life was like when good medical care was not readily available to everyone.
I see a different picture - one that decentralization can do. It is not "radical." It is more stable and attempts to preserve advances we have made. It doesn't look back with nostalgia on life under less tolerable conditions among the cactus, rattle snakes and typhus. It simply allows people to individually have a greater say in the controls they place over themselves. There are some problems with this, though, because just as we see today, the more localized government becomes, the more segregated life becomes. The poor will increasingly know which side of the railroad tracks is theirs. The bad side of town can easily become worse when people get to vote with their feet.
That's what everyone is looking for - a retreat to some ideal place where they can prosper without the shackles of others bringing them down. Of course, when you can run from these problems, you don't wind up fixing them. You wind up leaving them behind and concentrating them elsewhere - making them worse in that locale. That's what it's all about.... like the White flight to the suburbs and what happens to the inner city as a result.
As I recall, the combined population of the colonies was around 2.5 million at the time of independence. Imagine Houston broken into 15 states and that in each of these is where the people choose the bulk of controls under which they prefer to live. A person could really vote with their feet. It wouldn't be like having to move to France to get away from American governance. You wouldn't have to leave family and friends.
I can see much good in that, but I can see it will not be a panacea. It would be a fun challenge in place of the stagnant corruption out of Washington. Maybe we could architect something better.