Your rationalization on why it's necessary for government to create dependence on itself is colorful, but doesn't stand up. Again, you're trying to smash existential and political freedom into one lump. It's the same justification used by every thief who ever decided that they had the right to take something from somebody simply because they thought they needed it worse than the other guy. Existential freedom bought at the expense of someone else's isn't much of a bargain.

But getting past that:

If something is immoral if its done by one person, it's immoral done by a group.

It's impossible for you to accept this basic concept because it dismantles so much of what you believe. The entire "progressive" philosophy relies on the group's superior status to the individual.

Unfortunately, once you've established that the State can be used to impose one's will on other people, and that there are almost no aspects of life, liberty and property that lie beyond this scope, the rest is just gang warfare, and deciding who's going to have their arbitrary will imposed.

You must realize that liberals aren't even consistent on this themselves. If the people rose up and decided abortion should be outlawed, and the government passed laws to this effect, you would instantly call on the idea of basic principles that are and should be beyond majority rule or government legislation. It's amazing the number of social issues that routinely poll exactly the opposite of where the Left thinks they should, and yet has no effect on liberal thinking.

Your gang is just fine with government control of some things. The other gang wants control of other things. I'd like to see the ability to control chopped back.