Yes, but on a limited budget solar may not always be the best option to some kind of energy independence. It really depends on what you are trying to solve for. Solar alone won't carry loads at night, the panels are generally not portable, they won't produce much output in the middle of a storm, etc.

As an example, during one of the hurricanes that came through FL last year we lost power shortly after the storm hit. I had a smallish leak with water coming in, it was entirely manageable with a wetvac, running off my generator. But solar panels would have been producing zero output at the same time. Even a large battery bank would have been sufficient.

IME, Solar is something where there is often a case where the minimum investment to get a truly worthwhile system is higher than other things like generators, or recently even battery banks. People often overlook all the situations where solar won't produce any output. I look at solar as more of a second-tier energy independence solution than a first-tier. And it worth nothing this is speaking primarily for applications in North America that have generally stable power. If you're in a remote area with no reliable power infrastructure then the parameters are way different.

The money aspect is interesting.

Where I am the companies charge a ‘line charge’. It’s about 20-25% of the monthly bill.

I generate somewhere between 80-110% of the power I need, but in winter I only get half what I need from solar.

A larger system would cover this and negate the need for the line charge, suddenly saving a lot.

True [x] independence in even a small capacity has a value beyond just money.

..water.. ..food.. ..housing.. ..information..

I get what you are trying to conveying, I just wanted to highlight the semantic generality of the statement if it stands alone.