How is GNU not libre? Because the end user cannot run GPL'd software for certain purposes with no strings attached?

I'm sure that the point you're raising has been discussed to death in a thousand flamewars, but I happen to be unfamiliar with them. Sorry about that.

Could somebody please sketch out how this argument goes? I will outline my understanding so far, and I will use some jargon and concepts from CS, AI, decision theory and economics, please tell me if that makes me harder to understand:

A1: Community effort is good when it makes people better off (as opposed to achieving some narrow goal).

A2: Most software is community effort, so good software is that which makes people better off. The way to ensure that is to make software free.

B2: Free? Then how would programmers gather resources necessary to support themselves why working in a capitalist economy?

A3: Free is a toxic word. Let's taboo it. Instead, let's talk about what matters to the user who has already acquired software somehow without hurting the programmer:

0. The user has acquired the software without hurting anybody, and it's nobody's business how the software is used, in which manner and to what ends.

1. The user has some software but it's not quite enough to accomplish his task, so he creates the solution using everything at his disposal — and that includes other software he has.

When software is distributed in a form that impedes understanding and editing it, this actively hurts user who is trying to reprogram or extend the software, which is a legitimate manner of use, because every manner of use is legitimate.

2. He wants to help other people (other economic agents), so he uses all the resources at his disposal, including software, to help them. This encompasses sharing software.

B3: But this is a very skewed and simplistic view of economy. Sometimes success depends on hindering your competition (cf. minimax). Sometimes you have to hurt other people to secure your freedoms. Sometimes you have to manipulate the market, withhold information, not do everything in your power to reach the declared goal, not take risks, or take unreasonably high risks.

A4: So what? There are some fundamental rights, and since they don't necessarily conflict, we should simply avoid situations where they do. When that's not possible, we should seek compromises. In the case of software, the right thing to do is to err on the side of more freedom, because otherwise the equilibrium will fall at the point where no further progress is possible, and we don't want that.

B5: Say what you want, but I have I paid job, and my job security depends on me hindering other people's ability to do the same. The best way to do this is not to share the source code I have written. Oh, and by the way, I have an emotional attachment to it, and I cringe to think of somebody messing with it. It is also badly written and I would be ashamed to have it published, but I have no time to clean it up.

A5: This is why we can't have nice things.

B6: Most of hardware is closed source. There is a lot of nice hardware. Some of the nicest hardware is made by some of the most secretive organizations. So you're obviously wrong in your conclusion, and you must have erred in one of the logical steps in your argument.