Can you elaborate? Do you mean less space needed for the same amount of transactions or something directly depending?
Here is an article that should help you get started:
Segwit benefits.
Interesting read. Did not know all the points...
Why should the miners impose limits or softlimits again? I don't see a reason for them for doing so. If you speak about propagation time and orphaned blocks athen there already are solutions to this with Matt's? network. That network even beats zero transaction blocks at the moment.
Why have they done so in the past? There is nothing that suggests that they wouldn't do so again.
The only have done so in the past because it was the default setting in the client. I believe it was at 750kB. Even with spam attacks there were often blocks with that size so the soft limit kicked in because those miners were not aware of that setting. That limit was set higher on default later, I believe, and the miners were informed to raise it.
But they did not set it down themselfes. Maybe some did but it was not the big mass.
Well, your last sentence is of somewhat psychological sneaky. Surely not everyone wants segwit. There are enough fears against it. It doesn't mean that they don't want more TPS. They might want it another way and that is completely legit.
No, it is not. It is just a logical statement. Once Segwit is implemented you have two options: 1) Use a client that supports it; 2) Use one that doesn't. If you opt for option two you are indirectly stating that you don't want the increased capacity or you don't need it.
Well I hope you are not one of the persons that live in a black and white world. I had tiring discussions on political topics with people like that and everyone who saw things a little bit different than they... were on the black side.
There is still the option to not use Segwit and use, or wait to use, a client that supports bigger blocks.
This is simply no black and white question.