Being free to rot and die is a rather limited view of what "freedom" means. Namely, just the absence of the state breathing down your neck. If due to economic conditions, you are forced to sell your labor for a pittance (because due to the reserve labor army, wage elasticity only benefits the owners of the means of production) under abusive work conditions, to what degree can one be truly free? If one could live off photosynthesis and reject these jobs so as to negotiate on equal footing, you may have a point.
If the only thing you can do is die because of material conditions imposed on you through no fault of your own, you aren't "free" at all. You may believe that this isn't real, that it will never happen to you because you are much smarter and more hard working than that, but history suggests that you'd be wrong. Holding that viewpoint requires accepting the premise that everyone worse off than you is dumb and lazy. A self-satisfying perspective to set into, but not one that is supported by evidence. It also requires accepting that you are dumber and lazier than those who were simply born into riches, which is how most rich people nowadays made their wealth.
It's funny because legal restrictions are much, much easier to flaunt than material ones -- breaking the law only requires the will to do so, but a former industrial worker in his late fifties whose job has been relocated to Vietnam can hardly will himself into a twenty-something big data expert mathematician. And yet, you insist that only legal restrictions matter when determining whether one is "free".
Read up on the causes of the Greek crisis. It wasn't government social spending spiraling out of control -though book cooking was a serious problem- but rather private bank financial speculation and a lucrative credit bubble that was facilitated by the euro, central banks, and EU institutions. Other countries were also hit, and not just the PIGS, but Belgium, Netherlands and the UK, that paid billions to bail out the irresponsible private banking sector.