Haven't you read the paper of Peter R about the existence of the fee market without a blocksize limit?
Miners cannot make infinitively big blocks because of orphan risk. Real world constraints are enough to make appear a need for transaction fee.
Ok, let's say you hit the "real world constraints", what then?
Someone will come along, proclaim the new version of fullblockalypse, say the end is near because blocks are at the technological limit and we now have to make people pay fees, etc etc... then they will say they have that fantastic solution of changing the X parameter in the network (like block times issued in 20 minutes instead of 10m to allow larger blocks to get propagated without getting orphaned, or the implementation of some other "hack", to "solve" the "problem") and if we don't do that NOW, it would be a frickin' disaster.
A new rift ensues etc etc and then we have yet another currency after BTC and BTCC.
This is bullshit. It never stops.
Plus, there is an issue I thought of the other day, triggered by a discussion I was reading. In a big block scenario and if most miners are in china from what I understand -and please someone correct my misunderstanding if I'm wrong-, the problem will be that they are communicating the big blocks through their national backbones in great speed while the rest of the world is orphaned all the time because they are lagging behind them and they don't have 51% hashpower to build longer chains than the chinese.
In this sense, the chinese could actually be ...incentivized to put out as large blocks as they want to disadvantage the rest of the world - even filling blocks with junk in a prearranged manner, where they act like a cartel to push others out and get all the BTCs for themselves. If it works, why not?