I love LJ and am a loyal member as of July 2001. In that time I have seen my friends-of list grow at a substantial rate.
About a month ago I lost professional work because of content featured on my then-public livejournal, so I took the approach of friends-locking my entire journal. However, I feel as you do that everyone should have the right to read what they want to read, so to get around the problem I adopted a policy of friending everyone back who has friended me, assuming that if they already have a livejournal account then most likely they're not here to circumvent my professional life.
This, however, has led to my needing to get a second journal in order to cross-post all my entries, because I have reached the friending limit of 750 people. The additional second journal is time-consuming and complicated, and while on the one hand I realise that this is not a typical situation, I also feel that friends-locking my journal should not make livejournaling into a chore.
I was just wondering why you have the friends-limit that you do. I also wonder whether, since you have recently commited to adopting the "banned user=removed 'friends-of'" option as linked above, you would seriously consider lifting the limit on number of people that can be friended by one journal. It seems as if removing someone from your friends-of list by choosing to ban them would eradicate any problem you might confront with spamming or trolling from someone who took it into their head to friend all of the world on livejournal.
And from a personal standpoint, if you chose to lift the limit, I would be totally, unendingly grateful.