I'm not sure why you think that there is some sort of free market for bitcoin transactions.  I have a lot of confidence that someday there will be such a thing, but for the next couple of decades (and possibly for the rest of my life) there is not and will not be.

Right now, every single transaction (with a couple of exceptions caused mostly by programming errors) is mined as a charity.  There is also some indirect benefit to the miners, in that the network actually working makes their holdings more valuable, but there is nothing even slightly resembling a balance between cost and reward.

To recap, we have no idea what it costs to process a transaction.  Even without the block size limit, there is a limit to how many transactions can be processed by the network in a given time.  There is a much smaller limit to how many can be processed economically.  And there is a vastly smaller limit to the number that could be processed economically without the subsidy.  We have no idea where these limits are, and they are all moving targets.

If we were starting at 100% adoption, Moore's law would let computing power keep ahead of the game, and probably even pull out far ahead.  But we aren't at the top of the adoption curve, we are at the bottom.  In the short run, the vertical slope looming is going to kick all of our asses.  There will be a period when the system won't be able to keep up with demand for reasons other than an artificial block size limit.  God help us all if we've evicted all of the small miners (less than, say, 100 million readily available capital) from the network before that happens.

I'm really not sure why I bothered to write this reply.  Your want the network (people other than you, at least mostly) to have to provide a scarce resource in unlimited quantity, while you accuse me of advocating central planning for pointing out that the market that you need doesn't actually exist.