There is nothing advantageous to artificially limiting the block size.

Then why do a supermajority of the participants in the bitcoin block-validating network choose to run software that does precisely that? They can run any software they want, including forks that change these rules. For the most part, they don't.

That's their choice to make, is it not? Several people tried and failed to convince them otherwise.

This "sky is falling" style of post is just the latest subset of "bitcoin doomed to fail" shouting. Bitcoin-the-currency is pretty much done, complete, finished - not in the "over" sense, but in the "no more brush strokes necessary" sense. There is very little left to add or change. Bitcoin Core the software implementation of Bitcoin-the-currency is under active development, but the vast majority of changes are related to the implementation, not the idea of Bitcoin-the-currency.

Voluntaryism means accepting the choices of others. The majority of bitcoiners have chosen the status quo of the current blocksize limit. You can argue against it, but they're not wrong for having different opinions.

I don't think the difference of opinion is "what should the bitcoin block size be?" I think the difference of opinion is "are the devs in the business of making hard-fork decisions for all users of the currency?" The answer that most have come to is "no - the status quo is what we signed up for, and the core devs are the core devs because they understand that we have not delegated them authority for rule-changing". Contentious hardforks will NEVER HAPPEN under the current leadership, which is why Bitcoin is still Bitcoin and not the clusterfuck that Ethereum has become. Learn from Vitalik's tremendous mistake!

Forking bitcoin is your right as any other open source project. If you believe the devs are wrong, you are encouraged to try, and join the list of people who have failed to appoint themselves Bitcoin BDFL. :)