If you had the power to add a constitutional amendment, what would you add to limit the scope of government specifically in the area of the government limiting an American's choice as to what they can or cannot buy. Whether it is in the form of corporate or banking subsidies or regulations prohibiting the production or sale of many goods? Do you think we need the Federal government to regulate the economy to such a large extent in order to preserve the Union and how would you stop it from expanding it's power over commerce indefinitely?
I'm going to indirectly answer that, then directly answer it. The indirect answer to your question's assumed question (whether I would amend the constitution for any purpose) is that I would add an explicit constitutional right to privacy.
"The people's right of privacy shall not be infringed."
A right to privacy is presumed by the 10th amendment, both against the federal government and the states. But that, for some reason, has been controversial for many years. Asking colonists about privacy is like asking a fish about water. It was an expectation so foundational it could not even be precisely recognized as necessary to commit to paper. Clearly, that was not enough even though at common law even dating back to the Magna Carta, the concept of privacy was understood essentially to mean "the right to be left alone." It was a right to be free from the alienation, molestation and intrusion of others, as people conducted their lives in whatever way they chose. The right of privacy was so deeply presumed at common law it was thought self evident by the framers. However, the anti-federalists correctly pointed out the risk that strict textualism would later manifest: that risk being, a judicial theory beginning from the proposition that the bill of rights was a ceiling, not a floor.
An infringement on the people's right to privacy would include, domestic commercial activity (such as contracting, banking, products to be purchased, created, produced or distributed).
I think what you're getting at is what I think about the kind of proposed programmable digital currencies that the antichrists at the World Economic Forum and Federal Reserve are proposing. And to specifically address that issue, any kind of programmable digital currency that is controlled by the government would inherently violate individuals' right to privacy. As to other commercial activity, I think most regulations exist to serve commercial interests. The problem is that many of them serve only certain commercial interests at the expense of others. This is anticompetitive; an alienation on free trade by definition, and therefore improper.