Most people would agree it is unethical for you to buy the stolen car.
But I'd have the freedom to choose. There would be no coordinator who would enforce this moral view upon me. And to be honest, I don't care about the history of the stuff I buy, just as I don't care about the history of the cash I hold, or the history of the components of everything I purchase.
Have you considered that the honest users in the coinjoin transaction you coordinate don't want Stalin, SBF, or Chainanalysis to participate either?
What a pity, but Bitcoin being fungible will be my response. However, I'll happily redirect them to Wasabi since they don't go well with fungibility. They just have to pay a few bucks to have themselves spied on by chain analysis, but it's worth it!
All of these actions you listed are immoral regardless of where and when they occurred
No, they are not. There are cultures which don't treat what I wrote as unethical, and in the past, most of what I said was acceptable. You yourself speculated above that
most people would agree it's unethical to buy stolen stuff. Because ethics is purely subjective.
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.
Yes, you would. You could just avoid including his transactions in the candidate block. The transaction would confirm at some point without doubt, but you could decide to not be the person who did it.
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"?
No. You also need to clarify that you don't see yourselves as just a mixer, but as an Internet court, and will censor in certain cases. That covers it.