Principles are things which, by their very nature, need no prior reasoning. They are things that can be identified as being instinctively right. There is no real 'reason' as such that people should be allowed to have control over their own computing- there is of course the potential for abuse through the licensing of the software, but primarily it is the principle which guides the theory.
If you apply the reasoning you outlined in 3, no-one stands for anything because all arguments essentially boil to principle and instinctive morality. You only care about free software (or should I say, 'open source') because it guarantees its users privacy and security. Now why should people have privacy? You'll find that that too boils down to principle, something which cannot be rationalised beyond the instinctive good attached to it. Do you not understand this? You cannot 'explain' principles (that is, provide objective reasoning as to why they should be carried through). You can only accept or reject them, and then build arguments on those assumptions. I challenge you to apply your own reasoning to yourself. Give me a single reason that people should have privacy which does not involve a principle of some sort.
