I don't propose going back to City States mind you, I'm just saying there are many things the Federal Government does that would be best handled by the State/Provence/Prefect/ or city.
Also, as a believer of commodity backed money, I don't think any government should be setting anything monetarily.
True. The states can do some things better than the federal government. The OP's idea doesn't work well at the state level though either. At the state level, there are many different cities that have their own interests. You have urban and rural areas, the different geographical regions within the state. All of them competing for their share of power and influence.
Take the state of California for example. You have the northern part, the central and southern part. The northern part is rural, the central is a mix of large urban areas and rural. The south the same. Most of the state lives in the cities. Sacramento, San Francisco, LA, San Diego and a few others holding most of the population. How would the people in the cities know what's best for the people who live in the rural areas?
The system the OP is envisioning would fall apart in a situation like that since there is such a different view of opinion.
Commodity backed money What exactly is that? The seller and buyer set the price? If so, in what currency? What would they use for money? They'd have to agree that some sort of money had a set value that isn't likely to change. Corporations would be terrible at setting the value of any money since they could use that power to set prices that benefit them. They could set prices for the consumer that would put you into a form of debt slavery. Without a government to set the price of any money, it would quickly grow out of control.