In practice, I'm not sure this is entirely true. Banks largely don't care who they're dealing with and are glad to sponsor transactions among terrorists and Naz

In practice, I'm not sure this is entirely true. Banks largely don't care who they're dealing with and are glad to sponsor transactions among terrorists and Nazis and what not, just like a blockchain. Governments lean on them by spot checking records and punishing when they can identify transgressions of law. Even with a blockchain, the same governments can tell anyone within the reach of its gun or goons that it is going to punish you if you transact with some forbidden party. Not having a single narrow waist at which they can stop it doesn't mean they can't stop it, just that it got harder. Further, the transaction that is censorship resistant, not censorship proof, is the public mapping of wallet id to coin id. Usually, supplier and purchaser are really interested in the movement of physical goods at some point, not just the transfer of digital coin. Whether that be drugs, slaves, or just food, governments can still find ways to stop delivery of those goods even if an immutable ledger somewhere says the party that currently possesses them is supposed to give them to you.