Is freedom useless to "the majority of users".

[Richard Stallman]

    RMS: Free software means you control what your computer
    does.  Non-free software means someone else controls that, and to
    some extent controls you. Non-free software keeps users divided and
    individually helpless; free software empowers the users.

    I read this argument quite often and think it's pretty useless in
    a broader few. The vast majority of users can't programm and is still
    depending on someone else.

Those who do not program depend on others to program, of course.
There is a big difference between depending on a community and being
at the mercy of a specific organization.  Except for Robinson Crusoe
and a few survivalists, we all depend on a community.  But in a
society of freedom and equality, we are not at the mercy of any
specific person.

    If I tell many of the ordinary users about this they are most likely
    rolling their eyes or burst into laughter. It is a very
    programmercentric view with an elitest touch.

When people say that, they are looking at the issue too narrowly.
Anyone can learn to program, and even though not everyone will do so,
everyone should have the right to do so.

Compare with freedom of the press.  Not everyone will write articles
for publication, but everyone should have the right to do so.