It's actually interesting to see that Satoshi wrote something like that, which is like saying "just don't use the Bitcoin Blockchain for something unrelated or bloat it with data that could be large and unsuitable for the system. You can create a seperate system for that to allow the main chain to be used for what it was intended for and even downloadable by almost anyone. I think he was just too careful not to displease certain people, but I'm sure in his mind he wants Bitcoin to remain in the hands of the majority who could become tyrannical out of frustration of being pushed out of the system by a small group of individuals who possibly should be elected/selected based on their past records of representing or serving the interest of the Bitcoin Community and upholding the Bitcoin principles without much issues
The objective is not to keep a majority happy. It is to enforce a predictable, albeit harsh, set of rules. youre analyzing this as a social problem, but it is a systems design problem.
What you call 'being pushed out' is the fee market functioning as intended. Block space is a scarce commodity; the fee market is the specified mechanism for rationing it.
it is a critical feature for the long-term security budget of the network. When the block subsidy eventually falls to zero, these transaction fees are what will exclusively fund the hash power that secures the chain.
A robust fee market is therefore essential for survival. The system was not designed to please everyone, it was designed to be incorruptible. anybody's frustration is irrelevant to protocol execution.
The rules apply equally to everyone, and that is the full extent of the system's 'fairness'.
