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.
Why is it not my business? Say you own a used car dealership, and a customer comes and offers to sell you a stolen car.
Most people would agree it is unethical for you to buy the stolen car. Although this will likely not stop the customer from successfully selling the car he stole, it requires he accept a lower offer because legitimate business people do not want that criminal activity to perpetuate.
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.
Have you considered that the honest users in the coinjoin transaction you coordinate don't want Stalin, SBF, or Chainanalysis to participate either? What if honest users refuse to sign any coinjoin round containing Stalin's coins, will you ban the honest users from participating in order to ensure Stalin gets to hide his loot from slaughter and slavery?
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).
All of these actions you listed are immoral regardless of where and when they occurred. It is not morally acceptable to kill a woman for cheating on her husband no matter where this woman is located. It is not morally acceptable to enslave or sacrifice people no matter what time it is. If SBF were legally cleared by the politicians he bribed, that does not make his theft "morally acceptable", it just means he is successfully evading punishment.
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.
Since Bitcoin is censorship resistant, if I were a miner, I would have no power to deny Sam's coinjoin transactions unless I controlled 51% of the hashpower. Since transaction coordination is not censorship resistant, I could deny Sam's transactions singlehandedly.
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.
So you'll shut up if the website is updated to say that "privacy should be preserved at all times unless you violate someone else's human rights"?