Property rights are also a fundamental human right as well. If you violate the fundamental human rights of others, you lose access to your own human rights.
That's not your business. That's the police's business. You're not the police.
As a coinjoin coordinator, would you refuse to coinjoin funds from an address known to belong to a chain surveillance company, knowing they are attacking your honest users?
There is absolutely no manner for me to confirm this assertion, and thus, I'd allow every coin. Despite of it being owned from SBF, Joseph Stalin or Chainanalysis. My business isn't to analyze the chain, de-anonymize everyone trying to assist my few honest users. My job is to offer privacy, to everyone. That's all.
Moral principles ("ethics") are objective. They are not localized to a location or to a period of time.
Moral principles are subjective. In some location, killing a woman after she is caught cheated on her husband is morally acceptable. In most countries of the west it isn't. In the ancient times, human sacrifices, slavery, gladiatorial games, pedophilia etc., were morally acceptable. There is no civilized country in the world right now that considers such traditions morally acceptable. Hell, even in this forum opinions differ. There are countless of users who think that mixers are morally incorrect services (e.g.,
msg61953351,
msg61923514).
Censorship resistance is a property of Bitcoin, censorship resistance is not a property transaction coordination between multiple parties.
You have confused everyone. Would you deny Sam's transactions if you were a miner or no? If censorship resistance is a property of Bitcoin, then you shouldn't.
I don't see how my support of property rights is considered some sort of sinister intention.
You're lying, because you have stated that you would preserve privacy at all times, but you will not at some times. Lying shows me nothing but sinister intention. Especially when we're talking about the core idea of the project; which is to bring fungibility.