You tendency to confuse Bitcoin with free market is largely misguided.
To quote davout:
Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of wood people are allowed to chop from the rainforest?
Do you think there should be an "artificial, centrally planned limit" on the amount of endangered species' specimens one is allowed to kill?
Are you saying we need centrally planned limit to keep Bitcoin decentralized?
YES!
Thank you for answering honestly and not beating around the bush. It is my opinion that most of the small-block supporters feel the same way (i.e., that we need a centrally-planned limit to keep Bitcoin decentralized).
I notice you didn't answer my(davout) questions. You wouldn't be against centrally planned limit on big game hunting would you

?
I don't believe in killing endangered animals; I think it's terrible, personally. So I guess I am glad there is a centrally-planned limit for killing bears in the mountains around Vancouver, for instance. But this isn't about what I believe
we're discussing what will actually happen. A centrally-planned limit on big game hunting requires that the organization implementing the limit also act to enforce that limit--with violence if necessary. I'm not going to wade into whether this is right or wrong, what I'm pointing out is that to enforce a quota that goes against the free market outcome requires the backing of strong organization or government willing to use physical force if necessary.
Do you think Bitcoin Core is strong enough an organization to enforce a quota that goes against the natural free-market outcome? With 85% of the network nodes, it is already fairly strong. However, how will this organization physically force users not to defect to other implementations of Bitcoin that support larger block sizes to satisfy the demands of the market?