I also do not see a better alternative then that since otherwise we would still be dependent on alternative implementations and their development teams in order to give us a range of choice. In that case however the power would still lie with the economic majority and the miners so it would not actually in effect be any different in that regard, it just turns what was a representative democracy into a more direct form of democracy in regards to the blocksize. BU is not even about increasing the blocksize, it is about giving everyone the freedom of choice.
This is your subjective opinion and is not based on facts. I'm assuming that you do not have extensive technical expertise (no, this is not ad hominem; more like a question).
I do not have a deep technical background, I can admit that. I have a background in the humanities instead. I have spent most of my time over the last year learning about Bitcoin, I understand the rules of the protocol, even though I might not fully understand how they have been implemented in terms of the code. I think that this does qualify me to discuss the game theory, economics and politics of Bitcoin.
My point being is that I do not need to have a technical background to answer questions like "who decides" or what the economic policy and governance structure of Bitcoin should be. I could even argue that having a background in the humanities makes me better equipped to answer some of these question which relate more to the macro scale game theory, economics and politics. If you look closer at what I am saying here you can see for yourself what disciplines of thought are best suited for these questions.
You are absolutely correct that this is a subjective opinion, all of political thought is subjective. If we where arguing socialism vs capitalism, neither one of us can claim objective fact, such theories are completely objective. I think you should try and look at this problem less from the perspective of an engineer and more from the perspective of a philosopher.