I take your points, and tend to agree mostly. I believe this is key:
It seems to me that you personally would like to exist in a large system controlled by a just government. Therefore, from your point of view, it seems logical to consider a self-sufficient lifestyle as "escape" and not liberation. Such a thing surprises me, because in fact the off griders are obviously a very small minority, who in addition feel all the harshness, restriction and intolerance of the system conformists towards their way of life.
There's room enough for that minority and I wish them well. Truly. My point is though that we're simply not made that way, we've never been loners, generally speaking. My contention is that if we were to have a much flatter society, where that "just government" consists truly of our peers, much less people would want to be a "lone wolf". I can't prove that of course. And yes, even then there will be the odd exception and, like I said, there's more than enough room to grant them the freedom to live their lifes as they see fit.
I agree. My argument was not to inspire people to escape or hide away but to see those loners as a motivation and inspiration to build up something fresh for themselves - once you moved away alone, the chances are, that you don't stay alone. Nothing prohibits one to invite people to your place once you built it.
I do not believe in central governing and therefor I think there can be no "just government" as they have established themselves to govern centrally. When you decide over millions of people, you cannot give justification to all people, you provide it for some, but not for all. Actually, there is a great tendency and also lure to think of people as figures.
What do you exactly mean by "peers"? My translation says it's people of the same age, but I guess it is not what you mean?