Well said, I agree entirely with the points you make here. Except for one which is relating to how we should perceive the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto and therefore Bitcoin.

The argument for why we should stay true with Satoshis vision of bitcoin is not an "argument to authority". However to say that "The "guy" invented bitcoin. He knows more about it than you." is also not a good reason to follow "his" vision. I would argue instead that if we did sway to much from the original vision of Satoshi that this would to a certain extend break the social contract of Bitcoin and therefore part of the underlying value proposition. Furthermore since Satoshi did clearly think that we should have bigger blocks when they are needed, and our choice now is between Core and XT. I would argue that Bitcoin XT is more in line with the original vision of Satoshi, since not increasing the block size can be seen as breaking the social contract to a certain extend. Since it would change the underlying vision and promise of what Bitcoin should become. To leave the blocksize where it is now is therefore a radical change in another direction, and wanting to increase the blocksize can be considered the more conservative position. Even though it might not seem this way to many people.

This is because the status quo so to speak is opposed to the increase. This actually highlights part of the problem, to think that the status quo should in terms of development carry so much weight in terms of the importance of their opinions is to a certain extend in conflict with Bitcoins decentralized nature. There should not be a “official” client, there should be many competing clients, this is of political necessity, since as I have pointed out before such thinking leads to a centralization of power within the Core developer team. Bitcoin can not and should not be divorced from already previously existing political theory.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12267335#msg12267335