It could be argued that the vision was how no one would be in a position of power to intervene and prevent others transacting.  But what you propose is that someone in power should intervene and prevent others from transacting.  

Now imagine I'm in charge of one of your nation's security agencies or the treasury/taxation authorities.  In such a position, I wouldn't like how you're transacting without me knowing exactly who you are and what you are doing with your money.  Maybe you're funding terrorists or failing to pay your taxes.  How about I apply pressure to those same someones in power to prevent you from transacting in Bitcoin until you'll completed all the necessary KYC/AML and other privacy-crippling hurdles?  Things go to dark places very quickly when you consider the implications of what it is you're asking for here.  Censorship for some could easily escalate to censorship for all.

Personally, I take the view that your ideals are far more dangerous to Bitcoin's longevity than a bit of short-term congestion.  Bitcoin is neutral.  That means sometimes people will use it in ways you may not agree with.  But that's simply the price of freedom.