More than ever, I'm convinced that the answer lies somewhere between BIP100 and upal's BIP1xx. A balance between the two is absolutely 100% reasonable and the only people who would still take issue with it would be the ones who think Bitcoin's sole purpose is to benefit a small minority of ultralibertarian crackpots.
That sounds like a sensible position (although I don't understand the political allusion, libertarianism doesn't contain any economic or computer science theory, those being the disciplines that pertian to the blocksize debate).
Based on what they've been saying, it seems to be the root source of their stance. They have concerns about government control over money and see Bitcoin as a useful tool in counteracting it. I can empathise with that. I certainly can't argue they're wrong to think in that way. Bitcoin is incredibly useful in that regard. But where I draw the line is when they decide to get greedy and try to steer us down a path where this benefit would be limited to the early adopters and everyone else should be forced out. Some are clearly more honest than others when this intent is raised and questioned, but it seems to be the prevailing cause of contention. Half the drama we've seen in the forum lately would never have occurred if a small but noisy minority weren't pushing for that goal by any means necessary.