Scarcity in terms of space in blocks for transactions to be confirmed is necessary to cultivate a healthy transaction fee market.
This argument presumes the value of the transactions will justify exorbitant fees. That will end Bitcoin as a currency. I can see their point, but it's premature. Bitcoin isn't ready to replace gold as a store of value, but it's already losing power in confirming transactions. Bitcoin should work towards staying relevant as a currency until the market deems it's better as something else. While I agree with Justus that the market can help find the best equilibrium between fees and block sizes, I think it's best to allow network science to determine that ratio rather than market exploiters.
So you prefer central planning over selfregulation and free market when it comes to transactionfees?
I have to ask myself: Does Gavin have no real problems to solve or why is he solving hypthetical problems that aren't even confirmed to exist beyond doubt? Is this the way a chief scientist should be operating?