The OP gives a valid technical argument for raising block size limit, but is neglecting a financial argument against it.
The miners' income has to be greater than the cost of their work. Miners' income is inflation now, but is expected to be replaced by fees,
since inflation halves every four years. Purchasing power of new coins might be sustained for a while but must converge to zero in the limit.
Transaction fees exist only because there is a competition for block space. Eliminating that competition eliminates the fees and with that mining.
Therefore block space has to become and remain a scarce asset.
like i have said before in this very thread, it's better to sell 1 billion screws and make 0,01 cent profit from every screw than to sell 1 Lamborghini and make a profit of $100000 from that single sale.
bigger blocks means more transactions which means MORE FEES.
not less fees, MORE fees.
it's a GOOD thing for miners, not a bad thing.
Imagine if you owned a taxi business, but no matter how many taxis and taxi drivers you have, you are only allowed to transfer 500 passengers a day, period. You could own a million cars and a million drivers, but you would still only be allowed 500 passengers. There could be a major sport events like the superbowl or the champions league, 100,000 of people could be waiting for a taxi ready to pay but no, you can not take more than 500, why? because protocol said so.
The blockchain works by supply and demand, and supply is made by the miners themselves, not by some dumb hardcoded limit.
If the miners think 0.001 fee per transaction is too low, they are free to deny those transactions. But they should deny transactions just because 'lol the block is full'