An economist would also understand the inherent disadvantageous of central economic planning, which in effect is what Core is attempting to do now, at least in regards to their position on the blocksize related to governance. Essentially I believe that ideally the blocksize limit should not be used to determine the actual average blocksize, blocksize should ideally emerge from factors of supply and demand instead.
The core developers absolutely do believe the market should decide upon the blocksize limit and direction of the codebase. I have never heard the argument from one of them that their should only be one implementation and people should be restricted to only using their repisitory.
Whatever the people want they can get, as its entirely up to them what code they use.
What I see happening here is some are bitter that developers aren't beholden and forced by the will of the people to work on code they philosophically disagree with. This isn't how open source projects work. You cannot force volunteers to design projects the way you prefer. If you disagree you can fork and encourage others to join you. The developers are
n't our personal slaves that we can make demands from ... they are volunteers making very important contributions towards our ecosystem.
This is in strong contrast to the opposing view that Bitcoin should be governed top down by Core or that Bitcoin is governed by mathematics and eternal unchangeable principles.
Most of the developers are in favor of a diversity of repositories and implementations. This is very misleading.