Bitcoin gains it's value by proven exclusion of any third party intervention in a value exchange network between peers.
This is achieved in "The original vision" by that both the sender and receiver peer can independently get a proof by running a full node that there is no double spending on a transaction between them. No need for a trusted third party can be only achieved by this independent verification process, which needs the physically possible minimum technical requirements for running a full node for the most participants. A large block size excludes most peers doing this, essentially destroying the very core of bitcoin's value.
There was nothing about how the cost of transactions (fees) would be "fair" in the white paper; the costs of doing transactions in a voluntary, opt-in value exchange network is entirely upon the peers do decide between themselves.
You are basically saying that the free market is not working to establish the subjective valuation of the actors to reach a price of transacting. You think you can "spend their money better than they do".
That is the problem, not the vaporware you shill.
This is the fundamental truth that I think holes the bigblock argument below the waterline. Thank you for formulating it so succinctly. Of course they retort that low transaction throughput will force most transactions on to L2 or L3 solutions, thus reintroducing a "trusted" third party into the equation.
I say, fine, for low value transactions I have no issue with taking my chances with some gatekeeper, or using a lesser coin. But when I want to move a significant lump of value, bet your ass I will gladly pay whatever the fee at that time is to take the responsibility for the security of that transaction myself.