I don't see how it's trolling - the assertion is that one can be free to do things by reducing ones needs _to zero_. My assertion is that once free one needs resources (eg financial) to enable the doing of things. Boyd for example spent millions - through his job - on the development of fighter aircraft.
For me to get to the library costs ~£3 in bus fare, they don't have the book and so there is a stocking fee. They have an online order system which is also charged for which of course I need to own a computer. These things cost money to do.
My assertion is that the basic statement is absurdly false - no-one has given a context in which it is true.
Perhaps Boyd was prone to hyperbole and instead meant "reducing your needs will deplete your finances at a lower rate thus leaving you free to spend your money on doing things"; not very pithy and hardly a surprising statement.
Don't get me wrong, Boyd seems like a remarkable and insightful character but I'm calling him out on this one, at least unless someone can provide context to justify the quote.
