There are certainly those who agree with that argument, but the majority of them find it more comfortable on one of the altcoin forks where there's far less emphasis on node decentralisation.  You're not "wrong", as such.  You'll just struggle to find people who agree with that mindset here.  It seems everyone places emphasis in different areas, but those with similar priorities will naturally find themselves on the same chain.  But on this chain, nothing is above keeping the network decentralised and that means non-mining nodes serve a vital role.  

If you would rather prioritise low fees and/or fast transactions at the expense of all else, there are plenty of altcoins out there fulfilling that role.  It's a diverse space out there, so you should explore what does and doesn't work for your ideals.  But I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that a decentralised network which is resistant to change is primarily what allows Bitcoin to make credible promises about its money supply, as no one can easily change it.  It's also what allows Bitcoin to be highly resistant to regulatory shutdown.  So the more centralised a currency is, the more potential points of failure it will have.  If any coin ever has a controlling authority who can make sweeping changes at will, you have lost trustlessness and you have to hope that central authority won't screw you over.

Personally, I'd like to see some further compromise with regard to on-chain scaling, but not too much.  Perhaps that then means I'd be more comfortable on another chain too, since many are resistant to even the slightest further increase.  An elitist plaything for the wealthy with high entry barriers isn't how I saw this playing out, but it's drifting in that direction.  There really is no easy answer to this one.