I'll just add a couple of things to my last after getting the Giant Border Collie back from his run.
Your listeners are not a bunch of brain-dead idiots that resist for the sake of 'resistance.' Most are intelligent professionals that are willing to listen, but not be brow-beaten by someone that says 'I know what's good for you.' That approach just gets people's backs up.
Having been around the game long enough before retirement, I know that people are receptive to logical, cogent arguments. And if those arguments hold water, people need to be brought along, not bludgeoned into submission. That's the primary cause of resistance. People just turn off and get resentful to what is no more than a paternalistic approach. I'll say again: 'I know what's good for you.' It is not the avenue to win friends and influence people.
Personally, and it's just MY OPINION, I happen to believe that there is merit in Dick's push for IFR/IFR separation, and traffic on known VFR down to 700 AGL, where we have radar coverage at some of the busier places. But my OPINION AND BELIEF count for little. People need to be persuaded that such a move is a safety enhancement and not blind allegiance to ideology. If the latter is the case, they'll just turn off again.
That said, I've seen some posts where the boys and girls have said they'd be happy to provide the service, but that training and current regs don't allow. Hardly their fault in acting within current constraints. That is not 'resistance,' it's reality.
Give them the tools, provide logical argument in respect of a thorough safety case and risk analysis and, dare I say, you'd have them jumping on board to provide the service. Most I've known over the years have that thing called 'professional pride' in respect of doing all they can to facilitate traffic, whether IFR or VFR.