No, what it means is: "People who inject routes in the global routing table, for whatever reason, increase the cost of operating routers. So for reasons of fairness and as a mild deterrent, these people should bear a generous share of the costs associated with operating the RIR infrastructure."
Again, this implies the existence of some sort of cross-domain funds- transfers. As there is no direct and transparent relationship between ensuring uniqueness of address space blocks (RIR business) and those covering the cost of implementing the routing layer for the global Internet, it would simply be an address tax raised by the RIRs. There's not even the concept of "reverse funds" transfer from the RIRs charging for such addresses back to the LIRs.
A good way to do this would be to require everyone who wants such a block to become a RIR and to charge address based costs only on the number of blocks and not on their size.
No, see above. [btw, I assume the string "RIR" in the previous paragraph is just a typo and that you meant to type "LIR". Otherwise this would be a clever move to kill the proposal - by sending them to ICANN for recogition as an RIR :-] And, I presume that addresses would only be distributed by way of an LIR anyway. So where is the point?
Note that I'm not saying these people should pay an artificially inflated fee (although deep in my heart I would love that), just their fair share.
With your definition of fair for something you don't like :-) Scary...
It shouldn't be cheaper to obtain a special prefix than a regular one.
Indeed, and then it should not be smaller or, rather, more difficult and risky to use.
Also, there should be limits on the number of special prefixes.
Ahem, how many - and why? Wilfried.