I generally try to keep an open mind to any suggested change no matter how radical it might be, but in this particular case I think it is quite moronic to believe that a transition from point A (copyright) to point C (no copyright) without at least trying to go through B (permission system) is possible, without severe negative effects on the technological progress.
…
And when activism does not make sense in terms of serving a greater good, then the only explanation I can give is that such activism is driven by each individual activist’s own benefit.

Striking a balance between two extremes is essential to the nature of compromise. I agree whole-heartedly with your sentiment that negative effects prevail (as seen from the other side of the fence) at either extreme.

As to your explanation, consider that a compromise may not be established equally between opposing camps. Thus each side relies on negotiation strategies to set the compromise closer to their goals. Activists may be willing to meet at B, but not willing to sacrifice ground by starting at B and negotiating a compromise between A and B. Then again, did the activists mention they’d like to meet at B?