I have an example of JT's point:
Violent revolution created the Soviet Union, peaceful resistance in the form of a parallel economy (otherwise known as the black market) ended it. By 1985, it was an open secret that the 2% of privately-owned farmland produced 30% of the food. A back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that, on average, private farmland was twenty-one times as productive as public farmland.
Simply abandoning tyrannical society and living on the fringes works a lot better to undermine it than active measures, though you will never get a statist to admit that the USSR destroyed itself; capitalism certainly helped, but it wasn't the military-industrial complex (not actually capitalist, but hey, details), it was Pizza Hut.
No, I'm completely serious: Pizza Hut is what brought down the Soviet Union... well, that and a 2600% inflation rate from the well-intentioned disaster called Perestroika.
BTW, this is the exact reason that statists want to mandate participation in their sick little social experiment they call "society." They need people like us, because we're the ones who can actually do stuff, but we don't need them. Of course, they like to flip this narrative on its head; I actually had one of these people tell me "good riddance, we don't need you" when I expressed my desire to simply live and let live...
...and Bill Astore wonders why I have an axe to grind with him.
Perhaps if you refer to my last reply to @jacobtothe above, you'll find us more in agreement than not. However, I am not a fan of abandoning society. I acknowledge that some folks are not able to sort the ongoing transition, and society is not going to manage this transition unscathed, but society is what will and that is what I intend to devote my work to.
There are too many examples of intolerable violent genocidal oppression than can permit pacifistic solutions alone to be potential. You can't sit on the sidelines while Vlad the Impaler rules. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do the right things to transcend centralization, but it does mean we need to be prepared to do all the right things, not just the easily palatable things.
Decentralization of the means of production is the ultimate economic force that will force societal evolution, and revolution will not create that paradigm shift. There will have to be people in a society that can seize those independent means for that evolution to succeed, and that may require defending them against genocide. We won't be able to just ignore psychopaths until we have the means to be secure from force projected by them, and that's the sad fact. There will be all manner of faults and flaws that come to light after the fog of war lifts, and that's what it is.
Violent revolution created the USSR, and violent revolution created republics. I cannot predict the evolution from centralization to decentralization won't be occasioned by violence, and it is silly to try, IMHO.
Abandoning the state's counterfeit society is not abandoning society, it is embracing the aspects that actually work. Gray and black markets, circumventing the lapdog media, and mocking them are tools that bring good results in the long run.
The government will likely respond to such activism through violence, and we may need to defend ourselves, but that does not mean initiation of violence by us will build a better world. Check out @badquakerdotcom's posts and books on sedition, subversion, and sabotage though.
You'll find no greater fan of @badquakerdotcom than I.
I actually did read that, and I am indeed aware of the flip side, i.e. that many societies have become tyrannical slowly and by degree over the course of years or even decades. Call it the ratchet effect, boiling the frog, or even weaponised pacifism, it's all the same Machiavellian trick. We need to weigh our options when choosing how to fight it.