We should avoid being subject to a master

@GPL's intention
The four liberties are important because users should have the right to help themselves and cooperate within a community without concern to the author of a program. A user that chooses to forfeit any of these four essential liberties means that user has chosen to be subject to the master of that program. The GPL's purpose is to guarantee the four liberties of free software for EVERY recipient of the licensed program; no user of a GPL program will ever be subject to any master. The way it achieves this is by **restricting actions that may deprive upstream users (of the GPLd software) any of those four liberties**. We who believe in the essential freedoms do not care about any action that causes users to be subject to a master and so, we do not care about any right to subjugate users.

@The right to distribute software and publish improvements
Computer software is a tool that is used to instruct the computer to process some information. A characteristic of a good citizen is one that shares their resources with their community. Proprietary software prevents users from being good citizens as they disallow users from helping their community by disallowing the right to share the tool that is the computer program. Users might then help their community by sharing the program without regard to the author's wishes but society shouldn't have to live like that, society should strive to live upright lives and be free. Copyright law does not allow citizens to share derivate works without the copyright holder's permission. Society should be allowed to build upon other people's work as well as share their improvements so the whole community can benefit. That is why these two actions are explicitly defined.

@Freedom == choice?
Choice does not equate to freedom. If you were sentenced to gaol and you could choose what colour the walls you wanted the cell to be, you would still be an imprisoned man and not a free man. If you were a slave that could choose to serve a tyrant or a dictator, you would still be a slave no matter who your master is. If you choose to forfeit any free software right, you are subject to the master of the proprietary program; it doesn't matter if you have the right to get rid of it later, you will still not be free until you are no longer subject to the master. **Freedom in our context means being free from subjugation of a master**. In this context, there is no way the GPL uses some "perverted" definition of freedom as there is no master to be subject to.

@GPL acts like a dictator?
If you do not wish to be bound to the terms of the GPL, do not use GPLd code in your programs; nobody is forcing you to use another's GPLd code in your program. The GPL only works when the licensed program is shared others in society; distributors are only compelled to share code with recipients of the program. You are allowed to keep the code private if you keep the binary private.

@GPL discourages business use?
I think businesses such as IBM, RedHat, Canonical and Sun disagree with you about businesses being discouraged to include GPL software with their own programs. I do agree that the GPL will not be touched by many commerical entities and therefore will have a limited commerical audience. The people that run these entities are evil as they subjugate users with proprietary software and so, they will reject the GPL as it's intention is so all users be free from subjugation.