Which is essentially what I am doing, reminding people that they do have this freedom of choice. The freedom we have depends on our collective political culture, this is in some ways similar to state democracies. If we see the proof of work concensus as a type of election or vote. Then it can be argued that having an election with only one party is totalitarianism. Having only one choice is the equivalent of having no choice. This is why we need more viable and respected alternative implementations of the Bitcoin protocol, in order to better and more accurately reflect the will of the economic majority.
This is all fine ... but why use the word totalitarian when those devs are standing shoulder to shoulder with you asking for more implementations and contributing parties? Have any devs suggested otherwise, do you have any evidence that they don't want other implementations?
This is a good question, I will compile a collection of writings attempting to prove this point in regards to Core's mentality in terms of governance. Will take me some time to get it all together, was planning on doing this anyway. I am a bit busy at moment however, but you can expect me to post this in the next few days.
In the meantime I will simply just post this question I asked Greg Maxwell:
If hypothetically more then seventy five percent of the miners supported BIP101 after January. Would Core recognize the will of the economic majority and implement BIP101? If you would implement BIP101 under such conditions you will have my full support. However if you intend to ignore the economic majority and still attempt to push your own agenda while circumventing and undermining the proof of work consensus then I will accuse Core of tyranny and totalitarianism. Which one is it Greg Maxwell, can you answer this question?
He could have simply answered this question and he would have gained a vocal ally, he could still respond now. Instead he responded by criticizing the proof of work consensus while at the same time not actually answering my question, besides from saying that he will stop working on Bitcoin completely if he does not get his way. This alone is enough for me not to support Core anymore, since I would like the implementation that I support to follow and respect the proof of work consensus instead, since I do believe in the greater wisdom of the crowd and the market compared to decisions made by a small group of technical experts.