I don't quite understand the question; I've not noticed a bias against game balance.
I can say I've noticed a phenomenon similar to what he's talking about. Most often, it manifests on various D&D game boards as a sentiment that some games, usually D&D 3E and more recently 4E, sacrificed certain flavor elements for the sake of "almighty game balance." I first used to hear this in 2000-2002 back when people argued about the 3E Rogue being so much more powerful than the thief, and all the beefing up their abilities got so that all classes could advance on the same XP chart. Later, it was debate over all sorts of small things like Drow Weapons no longer decaying in sunlight, or Multiple saving throws for hold person, or removing save or die effects. More recently, it's been the debates, fussing, and outcry over 4E giving all classes the same resource tracking mechanics with at-wills/encounters/dailies so that every class "feels like a spellcaster now" to use one argument.
But I will say that there are people who want the freedom to mess around with choices without the nefarious machievellian motives you've assigned to them. And sometimes flexibility comes at the price of game balance because the more flexible a system is, the harder it is to balance.
It's a trade-off; it's about taste; and it doesn't have to involve socially deficient motives like "wanting to be more powerful than the other players". Sometimes it's just what it is - a desire for greater flexibility at the recognised cost of losing a degree of strict mathematical "balance". That's neither right nor wrong; it's a stylistic preference.
I'll agree with this, though - you'll never get 'perfect balance' in any game, as long as it changes and varies. The more options, the harder balance can be to establish. In the end, it seems to me like it always boils down to Matthew Finch's "Rulings, not Rules" motto from the Old School Gaming Primer. Those who don't see balance as the best means to an end seem to argue against it, sometimes so heavily the point gets lost and people act like they're arguing to throw balance out completely. On the other hand, I've seen some people argue for balance and vs. DM fiat so much sometimes it's as if they've never had a good GM nor fair fellow players in their lives.
I'd rather designers work toward a balanced game than not, but I also want my GM fiat rules to fix what designers will never, ever be able to do, which is forsee what happens at each individual table. Not including both hurts ALL games. I'm willing to bet those GMs who play unbalanced games but with 200 pages of their "improved game rules" probably don't have very many new players consistently coming to their tables. They might have the same group of repeat die-hards and buddies who've been together a while, but shove a few dozen pages of house rules in someone's face to fix all sorts of imbalances, and it's usually "goodbye."
