This must be the 50th thread on this topic.
My response is this: although your proposal builds independence, until technology advances so one's location is totally irrelevant then being clustered around cities provides advantages in employment, services, and other skills. This is why urbanization happens, because location truly is key in success. As rural areas, on the other hand, rely on natural resources for their income people will keep moving from countryside to city until net real income is equal.
From a pragmatic point of view, is it more efficient to "develop our own system" now or use more resources a few years from now to build a better system? These are laudable goals but it's necessary to plot out the best possible path, and it may vary from person to person. One has to be more subtle and inconspicuous in a city environment but there are more opportunities to network, more things to disrupt, and more skills to pick up. Conversely, there's more freedom outside cities but opportunities to expand reach are limited; moreover, federal agencies cautiously watch homesteads after WACO.