Then adaptive block size is the answer. To be honest, I think that Monero is what many Bitcoin enthusiasts and supporters want Bitcoin to be. Maybe it's time to migrate to Monero?
Since privacy is one of the most important principles of the ancestors of Bitcoin, I'd have to say yes. Monero does better what Bitcoin was envisioned to become; peer-to-peer cash.
Unfortunately, the dynamical block size is neither the answer. It's just another temporary solution. It can render the system dysfunctional. See what happened last March in Monero:
https://monero.observer/monero-daily-transaction-new-ath-100k/. A single spam attack might not seem of substancial matter right now, but if you're running a node (as you should), it takes a decent time to verify those 100k transactions. And consider that if more people join, it no longer becomes "spam". It's regular transactions that slow down verification.
And since there's a dynamical block size, imagine what can happen if an attacker with a decent amount of money (dynamical size -> cheap fees), actually executes a spam attack for many months.
The aim of Satoshi was to create a non-reversible transactions without a trusted party. The main idea of Bitcoin also was to keep low transaction costs. I am quoting the whitepaper.
Which part of the whitepaper talks about "low fees"?
Yes, freedom is good and there is nothing wrong with it but Ordinals clearly abuse Bitcoin and use it for purposes that were never meant.
Centralized exchanges abuse Bitcoin, as it was meant to be peer-to-peer cash without trusted third parties. So, let's ban centralized exchanges.
Do you get it now?