None said we want zero fees. You can not want to have mutually exclusive things like no fees and security at the same time. Any reasonable person knows this. So this argument is flawed.
There is no flaw in the argument. As a consumer you want to pay the least possible money, and that is zero. A cash tx is zero. My post office, for example, says for credit card you'll be charged +0.35 euro. So cash it is then. Why pay extra 0.35? Fuck them.
But even if we are talking non-zero you always want to pay the least possible. So why is it such a problem if paypal, banks, cc's ask you a ton of money and miners ask you a fraction of it for processing your tx? They are still the cheapest option available and doing it while dealing with the inefficiency of a p2p system. Why are you proclaiming that the system violates user demands etc etc? It doesn't make any sense for me. I mean, if we can live with banks, ccs, paypals etc and bitcoin has a fractional cost of them, why are we so hypocritical and vent against bitcoin fees - when everyone else is sucking us dry?
IF bitcoin gets mainstream, integrated into world commerce you seriously think multinationals/tech companies/universities etc. won't run databases, mining centers, with their own copy of the blockchain, and can not organize or pay gladly for the upkeep of the network in change to the reduced overhead and increased (global) market reach thanks to bitcoin?
Why would I take on the cost of maintaining a large data center when others can do it? Does it make economic sense for me?
In any case, if Bitcoin reaches the point where it will be hosted in 30-50-100 data centers worldwide, a few co-ordinated government raids and a DDOS on the rest, will shut it down. If we want such a vulnerable system that can be shut down like the piratebays etc, then we are idiots - we have no clue what the system was in the first place and how it should be operated. Some think centralization and decentralization as totally abstract concepts, but they are not. They have very real life consequences in how BTC can be shut down. If the average guy can host a node in his bedroom with his vdsl or fiber (adsl will probably be obsolete due to problematic upstream), that's helping A LOT because shutting down multiple thousand nodes is more difficult, although it is doable with other methods like filtering the traffic by controlling the ISPs and global backbones. But that's a card that they will burn only if they need to.
You guys a bit naive, if you want to go mainstream (read, billion users, total industries), and keep the scoutboy level system structure at the same time. One is not going to happen.
Nobody says it has to be stagnant - on the contrary. The system has to expand to meet capacity demands, but you have to be realistic on what demands you will serve due to technological constraints. The desire to have everything right now is normal, but to be realistic some time must pass in terms of technological progression - or software hacks.