You seem to think that miners have all the power in the Bitcoin system. The only power that miners have is the power to choose the order of the transactions in a block. They do not enforce the consensus. The nodes do.
They don't have all the power, but they're responsible for the security of the network. They don't just choose the order of the transactions. Take for example the voting for the taproot activation.
If the majority of those miners didn't accept it, do you think that we'd split into forks? I personally think that people will follow wherever is the most power offered.
I believe BIP-148/UASF/block size drama showed that it was not up to the miners to decide YES or NO.
By running a Bitcoin node, you are enforcing your own rules, no matter how the miners want to or have implemented. If your node doesn't agree to the new rules, then your node won't follow them because it isn't compliant with your rules.
The nodes make up their own decisions, but each make the same decisions as one another. By running a Bitcoin node, you follow some consensus rules, but you don't vote for the security of the network (which is where the whole system depends on). Thus, you can be part of the Bitcoin network, but not necessarily with an opinion.
I believe we all might have misunderstood POW’s main function in Bitcoin? Mining might not be a consensus mechanism, but a Sybil Attack protection mechanism?
Plus the protocol incentivizes the miners to do their job. It’s not that they are there to secure the network for the network’s own sake.
Do you agree?
I agree that it helps the network. I don't agree that it helps it significantly.
The UASF showed differently, but I respect your opinion.