You get free software with few restrictions on what you're allowed to do with it. In what way is that "respecting" you less than similar software with more restrictions on what you can do with it? How does someone forcing more control over your actions in any way "respect" you more?
When that source gets put in a product that is closed and then that product makes it to the user. How do people not understand this difference by now? Tivoization. It violates the four freedoms principle. That's how.
To quote zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC:
"A law that allows murder is more permissive and obviously does not increase freedom. It's simply a fallacy to think that not putting any limits on what any individual can do results in maximal freedom for society at large."
You're telling authors to take away freedoms of its own users now, to prevent a potential bogeyman from taking away freedoms of other users in the future.
You can use permissively licensed code now and forever, because that can't be taken away once released. You're refusing to use it now on the off chance that in the future, someone modifies that code to do something else and give it to other users without the code. Your initial use still hasn't changed, and your right to use that initial code hasn't changed. You are not a user of the new, modified code, so your rights have not been impacted whatsoever.
Right, so we either end up with more Free Software, or with more employment for us programmers. It's a clear win-win!
For most users the choise is not between a 50% proprietary product that uses an MIT library and a FOSS product that is 0% proprietary. The choice is between a 50% proprietary product and a 100% proprietary product and you are trying to take away their choice of the 50% proprietary product.
Complete eradication of proprietary software is not the expected outcome of MIT licensed libraries. The goal is reduction.