In an environment like this it's pretty easy to make the argument that having a neutral for-profit business model is "evil" because we can see the bad results of such a system. The problem is when one tries to deviate from this model and they realize it's not sustainable or valued by society, making it unsustainable and doomed to fail eventually. The system itself rewards neutrality and pushes the gears of commerce and technology farther, albeit in a toxic way.

Trying to make the argument that "it shouldn't be like this" is invalid when a better replacement system does not exist. They exist in theory but the reality of such "improvements" has shown time and time again to be even worse than what we have. Communism is awesome, in theory. Meritocracy is ideal, in theory. The theory breaks down in reality when we put someone in charge to run it and it immediately becomes a different system akin to any other top-down governance. None of it is scalable beyond a couple hundred people in a community that have relative trust for one another, and sometimes not even then.

For all these reasons and more is why we are all here experimenting with crypto and ways to create rules without rulers... or at least limit the ruler's power significantly. It all starts with not being able to sanction bank accounts, oddly enough. Money talks and bullshit walks I guess.