These are right on target: 
    Small software size.
    Free (as in Freedom) Software
    Open Source Hardware.

This One, I don't know enough to know if its true:

Small compilation toolchain.

But it probably is...

These are also good, albeit sadly the only one I think will be done more often than not, is #1 and even that doesn't happen nearly enough...
#3 also will happen, albeit part of it only...  #2 will probably happen more in the BSD crowd too,

#8, will happen somewhat also,  but in general, these things will rarely happen beyomd that, unless people start getting more intelligent...

But we know corporations hate that and will actively fight against that... but yeah, I agree your points are good, just very unlikely...

1: Choose hardware which supports 100% free software. (Since you cannot trust binary blobs).
2: Choose an OS which has a small kernel and other minimal software that you need. (OpenBSD is the only one I can see here today)
3: Do not trust the developer of that OS. Read the code and verify that there are no bugs.
How do I know that the binary made has no tampering and the code which I read has been compiled.(Now comes the worst part.)

4: Choose a small compiler. It typically should be a C compiler because Oses are written in C. (I know none which is small.)
5: Read the code and verify there are no bugs.
6: Choose a small communication software (preferably written in C as you would have to read code of another compiler if it were written in different language).
7: Read code and verify there are no bugs.
8: Encrypt with a good encryption scheme and send the message not trusting the sender

Although, I mostly try to do the spirit of 1 and 2 as is reasonable, and somewhat of 3 with operating systems that I do not trust.

Same with 8, but I don't think me or other people anywhere do any of these completely...

That being said, perfect security is utterly impossible in this life and in the hardware/software world, it is 100% impossible.

That being said also,  I try to to do as much as I feel I can to resist the corporate nonsense, looking at redhat and the other evil proprietary companies of the world...

That all being said, its a good list, I wish people would at least attempt to push towards one or more, of these, but even that is mega hard.
So, thanks, but its still too early for this.

Hadn't thought of suckless.org, but yeah, its very rare even still for people to think that way...

But you give me some hope, regarding this.  Appreciated.

Well I have read the article, but that part to discuss won't fit here in the forum. It would not even fit into hours of any kind of discussion as uncountable individuals have made the attempt to define what life and ethics could be like. Our social interaction is way too complex being defined in just one deterministic way and perspective. Therefore the thread "Being believable" for example is just about concrete thoughts and concurrent situations. Of course readers have different perspectives onto that everytime, so I won't be able to define just one "correct way".

In the end I can only note that it helps to get more emancipated and oriented for the global community onto that. Emancipation, solidarity and empathy are of highest value for us as social beings! And to "survive" won't be possible alone without them. So I try to give out thoughts clearly oriented onto those values.

Well, free software has a system for sure. But it is based on altruism, so a good value made completely useless in capitalism. You don't earn money? So it is defined as "useless". You can see that in the early propaganda made by Microsoft for example. In fact altruism can work on a common ground and sense, even now. But then again: With having imbalances in projects and only a few people being engaged, even the altruistic perspective is more or less on the loosing grounds.

The point about of "rule oneself" has a bitter aftertaste, because more or less it won't stay only by yourself. That's not how we humans think and work. So both points (capitalism and self-ruling) are in to be seen in combination as you cannot be single-sided independent from the ground-basic system itself. And capitalism always tends to be as big as possible. The rest will be then a gruesome tale for the future: Either free, libre software is dying slowly because altruism and a common sense for solidarity and empathy is dying also. Or it will be the opposite and a dominant "free software" will be the same model we have now, even worse possible. The reasoning is easy: Why should software be "free" then? Just a little amount of money then and the source-code stays open for building. Okay, a little bit more amount with the newer version and the code only for registered members. Okay, more amount of money and no code. Just an example on how thoughts could be. And even permissive licensing can be changed. You can see that in many projects going more and more into the reasoning of "open-source", which is "some-way" open but not complete.

My point is: You can be free, you can be individual. But there is a "we" in every "you" or "me". Individualism is within collectivism and collectivism is within individualism. That would be some way forward, because otherwise everybody (individuals or groups) is trying to "rule", but for the cost of others getting problems sooner or later. That's how "ruling" works! And free software lives on with participation and sharing. When people think free, libre software has only to be like they want it, the concept will sooner or later become a problem, because of "ruling". We can see that already with many Linux-only frameworks. And we can see it within the indifference of many participants in the soft- and hardware generic: Seems many have a problem to stay clearly for dignity and empathy, so better to "rule". And they do, otherwise we would have not been here into that discussion and there would have been also no need for Hyperbola to remove so much parts from many applications and libraries.