> Fear of the Crown re-organizing your governmental structure along the lines to move to an extractive form of colonization were well founded.
I'm not sure that's reasonable. The crown was hardly capable (nor particularly eager) to strip the American colonies of their autonomy. They were barely even able to impose new (and quite reasonable if not necessarily fair) taxes.
And anyway "selling" millions of Englishmen to EIC would be politically inconceivable both in England and in the colonies themselves.
> at the same time the EIC is being granted extraordinary privileges in your colonies
The parliament granted the company (which was on the brink of bankruptcy) the sole right to import tea to NA but they still had to really on local merchants to do that and AFAIK had no direct presence in the colonies. I'm not going to argue that was fair, especially when the colonial governments had no say on it but it's still quite a jump to what you're saying.
> to an extractive form of colonization were well founded.
That wouldn't have been feasible in the northern colonies because there wasn't much to extract. And they have already been practicing a form of extractive colonization in much of the south (which the plantation owners didn't mind). Of course to a much lesser degree than in the Caribbean which was much more suitable for growing sugar and other cash crops.
> the colonists were very averse to monopolies on trade since the few examples they had lead to disastrous behavior by the monopolists.
The EIC tea was actually cheaper (al though possibly that would've changed after some time) than the smuggled Dutch tea. So the EIC undercut many of the Boston merchants who made their money illegally importing it. I'm not defending monopolies but self-interest surely must also have paid a part
> try to think from their perspective: the Crown is preventing you from expanding westward
Yeah, if I was a rich landowner in Colonial American I would have also been pissed at the crown for not allowing me to the land (we rightfully won in a war) from the Indian Savages and would surely be enraging by it granting the freedom of worship and limited degree of self-government to the papist Frenchmen in Quebec. This is not sarcasm at all, I just think the self-interest was clearly the primary driving force behind the revolution. The politically active (i.e. well-off) colonists just felt there was more to be gained by getting rid of the British than by maintaining the status quo.
> were not only rampaging colonial brutes.
Unless you happened to not be white, then they more or less were. The thirteen colonies were the equivalent of the EIC, it's just that much lower population density in NA than in India significantly reduced the pool of people to commit atrocities against.