Perhaps, but I would argue that you would surrender as many freedoms in order to live a moneyless life as would be taken from you otherwise.
The lack of government offers the greatest amount of freedom, but the least amount of security. When a people band together to form a government, they do so with the understanding that they will trade an acceptable amount of freedom for an acceptable amount of security. I believe our Constitution, as written, represents an excellent balance between the two. That being said, our government, as practiced, bears little resemblance to the government the Constitution proscribes, nor has it since at least the end of World War II.
It is the natural tendency of governments to attempt to expand themselves. I believe that our founding fathers knew this, and attempted to write a document that would prevent, or at least retard, that growth. The Civil War weakened the power of the States, and the government began to grow at a faster rate. The Great Depression weakened our support for free markets, and government stepped in to fill the void with social guarantees. World War II left us with a fear of invasion, and with the power of nuclear weapons, the government responded with a full-time standing army, under the auspices of the "Department of Defense", to alleviate those fears, and the power of the militia was weakened. The Civil Rights struggle left us with a fear that State governments could not adequately protect all the people, and the Federal government stepped in to offer 'protections' the States had failed to provide, weakening the power of the Governors and the State legislators. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education, the list goes on, all well-intended programs designed to take a little more of our money and a little more of our freedom to provide us with more security. Each of us may have a different opinion on how fair of trade each of those has been, but one thing remains certain, the government, having acquired additional powers, has yet to relenquish any of it. When Presidents have attempted to reverse the trend, or even to slow it, they have been accused of wanting to 'starve children, destroy the environment, kill the elderly, roll back the clock on civil rights, destroy our educational system', etc., etc., etc.
Lots of people, even on this site, decry the loss of 'freedom' under this President, yet seem to loathe to admit that his only about the 41st administration to continue this expansion of power. Yet, try to restore some freedom by reducing some of the security that it was traded for, and see what happens. some here decry the loss of freedoms under this President, yet advocates a system of medical coverage that would make every doctor in the nation a civil servant. Others want to raise social security taxes on wealthy patrons so that they are guaranteed to pay more in than they could ever recoup, in essence having the wealthy underwrite they program, making it a welfare program rather than a retirement plan as it was originally sold.
Methinks they protest too much.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.