Agreed, and I really hope he knows that is he is held in very high regard by a lot of us. Personally, I really enjoy /u/mike_hearn 's articles and postings - he writes clearly so that everyone (not just the tek-heads) can understand, he addresses and pre-empts the best arguments against his positions, offers alternatives and brings a very important perspective given his work background and experience w/ first-class consumer products like google maps.
A lot of trash gets thrown at Hearn and Gavin as result of their opinions (which are not anti-govt) and willingness to work with existing financial players. This is too bad - I would say the vast majority of investors and speculators - who are the ones that give btc the value and hype that people care about (see marc andresen's twitter and youtube videos where similar points have been made) have not signed up for the anti-establishment agenda certain members of Core have been gunning for. When you boil everything down to the root of the blocksize matter - the issue is not about scaling, privacy, security, etc. The blocksize debate is nothing more than a proxy for avoiding financial compliance regulations so that certain parties can keep bartering property in caves and shadows (might as well be trading sticks for pelts).
For an example of how this manifests in the children, see here and here. These posts, to me, show clear disdain for majority of users and their wishes for BTC. Further, the comments are generally confusing - (i.e., MC's May 2015 post, citing a tweet by Coinbase RE: in support of raising blocksize , basically says scaling is bad b/c it keeps perpetuating what has been going on economically in the ecoysystem - work towards growing adoption by consumers who want to pay for things with bitcoin, etc.):

This allows the well-funded Bitcoin ecosystem to continue building systems which rely on transactions moving quickly into blocks while pretending these systems scale. Thus, instead of working on technologies which bring Bitcoin's trustlessness to systems which scale beyond a blockchain's necessarily slow and (compared to updating numbers in a database) expensive settlement, the ecosystem as a whole continues to focus on building centralized platforms and advocate for changes to Bitcoin which allow them to maintain the status quo[1].

That kid's post is interesting when compared with this one a few months later by PW:

But what you're arguing for is that - despite being completely expected - blocks grew fuller, and people didn't adapt to block size pressure and a fee market, so the Core committee now needs to kick the can down the road, because we can't accept the risk of economic change. That sounds very much like a bailout to me.

These posts and positions therein are even more confusing when read in the context of that one AB tweet indirectly speculating about the possibility of class action suits against big-block folks wanting to scale the protocol.
Overall, it is appalling that no concern or respect seems to be given about the money spent or invested by others in this ecosystem to make bitcoin digital cash to facilitate internet commerce (see the first sentence of Satoshi's white paper: "Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments." Later, Satoshi states the problem is basically transaction fees (which is kinda funny in lieu of the fee market schtick): "Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party." ). Compare those Satoshi quotes with this paragraph from this post:

Another key point here is that the small bumps in blocksize which wouldn't clearly knock the system into a largely centralized mode--small constants--are small enough that they don't quantitatively change the operation of the system; they don't open up new applications that aren't possible today. Deathandtaxes on the forum argued that Bitcoin needs a several hundred megabyte blocksize to directly meet the worldwide transaction needs without retail... Why without retail? Retail needs near instant soft security, which cannot be achieved directly with a global decentralized blockchain.

TLDR, the anti-ecash and anti-everyday spending position (remember, bitcoin was suppose to be internet cash, and cash transactions have no transaction fees) is especially odd given that none of us would probably be here (or working at cool start-ups) without investors, speculators and users working toward that goal.

PS - also sorta funny: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Knowledge_Systems and http://emergentchaos.com/archives/2007/06/whatever-happened-to-zero-knowledge-systems.html (see very bottom comment).