Of course his applies to the financial market also, regulating Wall Street would be a far better good (morally and financially) for the US than any SR clone out there.
The right way to go, is to fight for your policies and vote for them when time comes. Not evading the law or hoping that illegality will reach a scale where the government will be forced to accept it.
On a positive note though, in countries like Netherlands iirc where many drugs are legal, people don't die on the street and drug (as in heroin) addicts have proper med-care if they chose to do so.
That's a very controversial opinion. Do you disagree with Martin Luther King Jr.'s tactics in the civil rights movement?
"King was arrested and jailed early in the campaign—his 13th arrest[74] out of 29.[75]" - Wikipedia
But then, we need to define what is a bad law. In this case I don't considering selling drugs, guns and illegal substances online ethical by any means. Not to mention the tax evasion which hurts all of us.
So, what does "unethical" mean in this context? Can be universally measured somehow?
On the contrary, the mere fact that something is illegal does not make it unethical.
I doubt that there is only one "right way to go" that applies to any situation, but I think that any tactic that can bring about a powerful long-term mass movement is more likely to succeed: for example in the case of the Civil rights movement mentioned, civil disobedience was only one of the methods used, along with discussions, massive marches, boycotts, threatening escalation, and alliances with certain people within the system who have more access to power and who supported the movement.
Which brings me back to the OP's point: individualism vs. authority. Since I personally believe that building mass movements that support freedoms is the most effective way to protect them, individualism (as a method of organising) seems to be another obstacle to building a strong opposition to authority, and thus indirectly serving it.
Why?