yeah, but it's not quite nobody it just some threshold level of most people. If enough people don't want censorship resistance money, does it wreck it for those of us who do?

I'm not quite sure that permissionless and voluntary are quite so double-edged. Like in democracy, majority rule can be stupid, so we built constitutional republics that try to limit the damage from mass stupidity. Bitcoin may have some elements like this: there's a reason people say it's blackmarket money. Incentives are best when people are pressuring it to degrade. So maybe the Darwinian example is not quite correct. Bitcoin at least has a known starting point. It's more like "survival of the Bitcoin-est" (only we aren't quite sure what most Bitcoin-est is yet).