I'm not advocating an armed insurrection. That would be futile.
Why? Moral precepts, first-order feasibility, or long-term sustainability?
The first would be insurmountable. The second may be surmountable with surprising ease, by innovative technique. The third is inescapably challenging.
It's just poor strategy to fight your enemy with his own preferred weapons. It's simply unnecessary anyway. The national governments of the world are doing a marvelous job destroying themselves. All we have to do it get out of the way.
I am advocating participation in the system to the least amount possible until in crumbles under its own weight.
That may be no less futile, and all the challenges of the third rationale continue to apply.
Obviously it's futile, but that makes it no less worthy of an objective. On a long enough timeline, the survival rate of everyone turns to zero. I resist being ruled because it's in my nature to do so. That's simply what men do.