You've overlooked an important benefit of freedom: only software freedom grants users the ability to either learn what needs to change and change it, or hire someone with the needed skill to do this job for them. You appear to have a preference for init over systemd (my experience is that the only people who bring this up dislike systemd), so you could do this work (or participate with others in doing this work) and then distribute the fruits of your labor, even commercially, so nobody else need live with the alternative you dislike. I doubt non-technical users will know what systemd or init are much less have a preference, but perhaps technical users will be interested.
Saying these freedoms are worthless without being technical enough to exercise them is thus not only untrue, it misunderstands the point of freedom. Your claim is akin to arguing that freedom of speech is pointless because you don't plan to speak against the powerful. Others would find such freedom useful, so arguing against that freedom does them no favors, and you can't tell what the future holds. Every programmer wasn't always a programmer, they probably started using computers as a non-technical user before they became a programmer. The wiser course is to value the freedom for its own sake and use it when needed.
You also conflate very separate issues: "closed source" is a reference to the open source developmental methodology which eschews the very freedoms I wrote about. That group is a right-wing reactionary effort founded over a decade after the free software movement and denies the focus on ethics and community the free software movement (a social movement) makes central to its activism. This has a profound consequence: Open source enthusiasts, when faced with an implacable proprietor who won't free their software or accept the offer of improving development by including the users, is all too willing to go along with proprietors. A free software movement activist, on the other hand, reacts by refusing the proprietary software offer and perhaps working to do the same job with a free program instead.
Finally you mentioned "commercial" in such a way as to suggest that commercialism is a relevant part of a problem here. It's not. There's nothing wrong with commercially offering free software programming talent. I recommend you charge as much as you can get for, say, offering your init-based variant of a systemd-based GNU/Linux distribution. You would hopefully offer a complete working operating system, not just the Linux kernel.