...
And you're saying the same thing that anyone else seems to: that because miners do not and have not censored transactions, they never will. This is clearly not the case, and I would argue it's an unwise assumption.
What do you say to the argument that, if the miners ever enforced rules that were unacceptable to the economic majority, that we'd push Adam Back's "big red button" by forking the protocol, rendering all their hardware useless?
I agree with that assessment, except for the "rendering all their hardware useless" part. I've expressed the same point a different way already. The miners that won't take an ethical stand would continue to mine the bitcoin network, and the economic majority might find their minds will change when they are similarly pressurised.
I'm not sure whether you're defining the boundaries of this particular game too leniently. You're approaching this from the perspective of the miners self-interest in respect of each other, but they're not the only actors playing, and monetary systems are not the only game dynamic. What stops government saying "never mind your sound money game, allow me to introduce you to the game we're actually playing..."