Yes.  I'm not a mind reader and cannot say what Hearn(dresen) does and does not favor, but he also spurred a quasi-private conversation about the implementation of 'red-listing' within the Bitcoin Foundation.  I've never seen any indication that he wished for it to NOT occur.

Early in my exposure to Bitcoin (GPU days) Hearn posited that monopolization of mining by large players could make un-favored transactions nearly impossible.  'There is no real difference between taking someone's money and keeping them from spending it for 20 years' was something close to his quote.  I give the guy a huge amount of credit for his prescience about the way things were likely to centralize as mining technology evolved.  The big sticking point here is that with the block size at 1MB it is still relatively practical for many people to be infrastructure providers (which is why I have not yet totally lost interest in and hope for Bitcoin.)

It is worth note that Hearn's apparent conceptions of what Bitcoin should be like (that is, reasonably controllable by \) are probably more palatable to the general population, and even to the majority of techies, than the alternative.  Early adopters are a rarefied pool who were interested in Bitcoin for other reasons.  Some philosophical, some intellectual, some political, some criminal, some speculative, etc.  Most some combination.

---

My favored graphical representation would be:

  Bitcoin  >>  Gavcoin >>  Govincoin >> Govcoin