Why doesn't stallman take this view when it comes to food production? If you don't grow the food you don't control what goes in to the food (nutrients, pesticide residues, fertiliser residues, etc). Even if you go organic, you are still ceding control to the grower over how, when, where the food is grown, harvested and delivered to you.
Sometimes, allowing someone else to do some or all of the work for you is, wait for it, beneficial to both parties. In those cases you can park you ideological bigotry at the door. Sadly, despite his intellect he does not seem to get that.
Let alone the environmental issues. Pooling resources into centralised services can (and should) be beneficial if done correctly. His solution is definitely sub-optimal on this axis by a very large measure.
For these reasons other people provide web hosting for me, and I don't own a nuclear, coal or gas power station, I just use the services of one. Likewise, water, sewerage etc. Its all the same thing. I don't need to have the blueprints and physical access to the premises to use the service.
Which of course if you take Stallman's views on software and extend them to these things, you'd pretty much have to demand access to these. I can see it now, "Here you are Piping Snail, these keys will let you into the main reactor, be sure not to hit any of the controls with your bagpipe..."
Does stallman own a credit card or have a bank account? I hope not, because he'll be implicitly using other people's computers whenever he makes a transaction.
What about when he drives his car, unless its really old, he'll be using software written by people to control the engine, the air con, the windows etc. None of which he will have seen.
What about the roads he drives upon? All the traffic light systems are embedded systems, which he is implicitly using.
Likewise if he ever has need of surgery or emergency medical equipment.
and when he uses telephones, faxes, modems, etc...
...and so on...
Frankly, his whole position is untenable and thus hypocritical.