How else do you understand freedom, trustlessness, and permissionlessness ? If there are rules, you are not free. Of course, violence is permitted, because *everything* is permitted (permissionlessness). It is the first of freedoms.
Freedom to do aggression is not freedom, because you are taking away the freedom of the victim.
If you want a trustless, permissionless system, I don't see how you can impose "moral rules". I'm not saying that you should adhere to trustlessness, and permissionlessness, but these are the founding principles of crypto.
Otherwise, you don't need crypto. You introduce a moral principle that transactions should not be double-spend, and the same centralized authority that sets these rules, and that will judge these rules, is the entity that will verify whether these rules are "moral" to their standards. In other words, the normal world out there.
You can have both decentralization and moral rules. This is not opposite ideology.
So nothing prohibits a person from starting up his own crypto project. But if he starts DDOS-ing his competitor, you bet there will be consequences to that.
There are already laws against DDOS, and besides, slowing down somebody's server is causing financial harm to the victim.
It's as if you would have no problem if somebody would grafitti your house, because that is freedom of art no? Well not if it's causing financial harm to you.
So the point is that your freedom ends at the point when it becomes aggressive towards others. So you can only compete in a moral way if you respect your competitor.