It was just a bald assertion that one should have freedom to do what they want because we live in a free society.
If we live in a free society then we should be free to do what we want to do, because otherwise we wouldn't live in a free society.
Any argument that justifies itself merely with "because freedom" can be used to argue for complete anarchy. After all, "rule" of any sort inherently implies restrictions on freedom. And if restrictions on freedom are inherently bad, then "rule" of any sort must be bad by definition.
How do you go from "it's no ones business how much wealth I accumulate or give to my children" to "anarchy"?
That's not what the OP said at all.