Both roads are painful, but it's the kind of pain that matters.
if we're willing to be shut-out for a few years (maybe 1-2 decades) out of the world market because we defaulted and refused to repay our debts (at least in the near-term), then there are other costs. From losing trade access to seeing remittances dwindle to not being able to import defence technologies, we'll be shut-out.
Of course, if we can then follow-up with a long-term plan of both economic recovery and negotiating bilateral trade agreements with specific countries, we might be able to recover. But then have you seen much in terms of competence and sincerity by our leaders? Because you need a lot of that to recover. And what of our people; do they have patience? do they have backbone? can they sacrifice today for the future?
I think the general population (esp the poor) are OK, but you're going to get massive push back from the farmers and businessmen who will lose access to the market. So we need a strategy to deal with that (e.g. quickly writing bilateral agreements with certain countries to sustain their exports); or we let these guys cry.
But then many of our imports are essentials, e.g. fuels, machinery (which are needed to help manufacture goods for exports), etc. If we default, we lose that. But if we don't want to default, then we need an infusion of cash. If don't want the IMF, then we need to look at other near-term options, to sustain what we need to import today in order to break free tomorrow. If not IMF or loans, then we need aid, grants or to exchange services -- e.g. look at using our Army as leverage with the Saudis and Emiratis, etc (become mercenaries).
My point is that if you want to change the system, then you really need to change the system, and the system is more than just policies. It's a combination of our policies, how we think, how we act and what we expect. Unless all that is in alignment, then all we're going to see are promises and broken promises.