I think your argument is flawed. People do have the right to max out their cards, they just have to suffer the credit consequences of doing so. Until bad credit is punishable by incarceration or death, I don't think your argument is going to hold much weight.
And I used to work in deaf relay (telephone services for the deaf), I have relayed pleeenty of conversations between bill collectors and the deaf and hard of hearing.
In any case, it turns out that it really is aggregate after all. So this whole argument is meaningless...
Ah... I apologize, I thought that question had been answered in previous posts. If I understand it correctly, there are two key metrics related to scoring utilization:
1. Overall Utilization (an aggregate, as you stated).
2. Number of accounts with balances.
There is a neat graph posted here in the forums that shows utilization as an aggregate and it's effect on various credit profiles.
Interestingly enough, it appears your credit score is working just the way you would like it to. Once your payment history improved, you rocketed into the 800's. And showing a balance only dropped you a few points. Really, even with the slightly lower score you qualify for virtually any offer. Your wish for credit scores to be based on payment history is granted.
You're also right that it affects your profile more if you have derogatory accounts. What I've found in personal experience is that if your file shows perfect payment history and no derogatory accounts, your score will remain high even when posting balances. There is another way to manage utilization... Most scoring algorithms do not include Charge Cards in utilization scoring. So if you want to post balances and pay in full automatically, you might consider a charge card instead of a revolver.
As far as freedom and transparency, that's really what this site is all about. We are all working together to take the veil off of the scoring algorithms, and decode the workings behind the curtain. I'm all for government protecting us from corporate tyranny, but my love of freedom prevents me from agreeing with total governmental control over credit scoring. It would be nice if the government had a clear, concise, reasonable scoring guide. But I've seen enough governmental programs to know that if you let them regulate it, it will be a stinking pile of red tape, full of payoffs and gotcha's slipped in to pacify banking lobbyists and impossible to change. If you think the CB's are bad, imagine what it would be like if the government ran it. No thank you.