I think I'm more on Lopp's side of this. I don't really see the burning of quantum-vulnerable coins as "a pre-emptive violation" of one of Bitcoin's principles, as the author of this article puts it. I see it more as a part of the overall upgrade package to post-quantum cryptography. As long as there's a long enough runway for people to upgrade before their coins are lost, I think this is a fair outcome.

The author of this article also argues against any large scale human intervention in bitcoin:

The problem is that every major upgrade to Bitcoin is going to be a large scale human intervention and open to subjective debate, as I wrote about in #849906. I think it's naive to think otherwise. I agree with the author that we need to be careful about large interventions, but it's implausible to think that we can just categorically reject anything that involves subjective judgment. Even the statement that we should reject such interventions is itself a subjective judgment, and a large scale intervention on the side of ossification.