Ironically, the harder people try to eliminate ads from browsing, the more intrusive the ads get as a result. The only possible outcome is paywalls everywhere, which in turn will damage a lot of sites since they may not have content people will pay for. Imagine if Codecall charged $5 when you signed up - we wouldn't get many new members. MetaFilter manages to do well with that exact same paywall, but they've built their community and reputation around it, and most sites can't do the same.
Anyway, I simply don't visit sites that overdo it with ads - if a site is so spammy that I don't feel I can use it without an AdBlocker, then I don't visit it. It seems like the fairest solution.
It's already extremely difficult for websites to fund themselves through ads because even if nobody uses AdBlock, most people don't click most ads. an example of my own - a few years ago, a hosting deal abruptly came to an end, and I was suddenly looking at server costs outweighing revenue for the site, by quite a lot. We had premium memberships for sale already, but few people took them up, and the ads we ran made basically nothing. Because we needed money right away, our only options were to either made the site paid-only, or to add ads that would actually make us money, but allows us to keep the free option. We went wit the ads, so that we weren't locking out all the free members. They were incredibly intrusive, way more than I'd have like to use, but the result was that not only did we make a lot more ad revenue, but we also saw a huge increase in the number of premium account purchases. In other words, more features (and they were pretty nice features) isn't a selling point to most people, but ad removal is.
Some ads are not PPC they are paid by the views, so it still does damage, but yes most people don't click on Ads, but some do and it can generate a lot of revenue for customers, for example this websites costs must be huge, and it runs by ads, if 90% of visitors had adblock I don't think Roger would have any funds to run it!