If you MIT license a critical piece of software instead of GPL it, what happens is someone will have a business idea on top of it. They implement their idea, then close source the new implementation.
They then bring in revenue. That revenue then enables them to amplify and accelerate their modifications. Eventually, they start patenting and commodifying their changes. More resources accelerate their closed-source implementation that quickly obsoletes the open source implementation.
Now, people are forced to use the closed source implementation or be left behind with an inferior tech. Because these things tend to optimize or otherwise accelerate them, they have no choice but to pay or trust this closed source implementation, and that creates a feedback loop.
They get more resources, build more closed source stuff, and rarely contribute back to the open backbone that enabled them to begin with.
What you describe sounds like the paradox of intolerance but I fail to see how that can be applied to free software.
Freedom in general: You can't have absolute freedom because that includes the freedom to take the freedom from others.
In software: You can't have absolutely free software because ... ? I fail to see how free software might infringe on the freedom of others.