Good post, I only have a small comment on the following:

all software should be free - and often that means that programmers should not be paid for programming, but for everything around programming

I noticed you said "often" there, which takes some of the wind out of my sails, but I still think this is a common chain of logic, and I think it's slightly wrong. There is nothing inherent in free software that prevents a programmer from being paid to develop it. The common licenses simply require the software to be modified and redistributed freely.

Likewise, a company who paid a programmer to develop free software still gets a return on their investment. Namely, they get to use the software that programmer developed. Keep in mind that not all companies who need software are in the business of selling software.

Thus, I do not see any reason that it is neccesary to develop proprietary software in order to be paid for the time of developing it. That is not to say that market forces are currently in favor of a paid-for-free-software type arrangement. I have not taken a survey, nor do I really have any experience to back it up. I am merely talking about theoretical possibilities. :-)