Most software worth a damn was made by a few people who cared. The business around it usually just gets in the way. This year you'll see hundreds of startups trying to "collect money" for some asinine idea. Most of those startups wont create anything of value. Even the successful ones will be gone or irrelevant in 5 years.
Linux just has a different business model. If you can do all your things like that, cool.
Many other business models are possible too, use that to create better products than the "invest huge sums now and develop the thing, collect small payments down the road".
It's strange to expect that other business models shouldn't exist so yours can work.
If you don't like locked down cars, just make cars the way you see fit.
And that's what RMS understood better than many others: His software (and by proxy it's license) is just a tool to enforce an ethical business model.
The restrictions on business models (imposed by software licenses as a tool) is necessary to preserve the Four Freedoms, which, at least in his view are required to use software ethically. RMS predicted, and accurately as we see, that forgoing these essential Freedoms will create a world where software is used (on us) in an unethical way.
You can’t advocate an ideology without a solution to the problems at hand. Someone needs to write that software, and that someone needs to be fed and sheltered. It’s also not shameful to want more than staying alive.
The gist is, for different situations different business models can work. If the one you propose works for your software, good for you.
The problem starts when you demand that other business models should not exist, so yours can work.
Aside from the fact that in democracies we regularly oust business models which we believe have dimetral effects on society, this is not what happens here. Free software exists as a choice. And is often chosen freely, because of it's transparency, quality, and continuity, not because of it's price. In fact, when you base your work on a foundation so large that it's infeasible to recreate it, the Four Freedoms actually work in _your_ favor as a business.
A car that already has the hardware but requires payment to enable that by software is exactly the same thing as paying for a video game: The video game is already created and uploaded on the servers but software requires payment to let you download and play it. There are numerous other examples like game consoles sold at loss, printers sold less than the cost, search engines or mail services provided for free, free hosting etc. - all investing huge sums on creating the product in hope to recoup that and make profit by collecting small fees later and they need their products locked down to be able to do this.
The whole thing revolves around collecting small payments for a the very large capital investment that is required to create the product in first place. Since the small payments are collected post-development, someone has to risk their large capital for this to happen, they also expect compensation and guarantees that the small payments will arrive if the product is developed successfully.
The software is locked down only because they want to enforce that business model. You can refuse to participate in that but ultimately, those who can invest large amount of money end up making the much better products.