And I'm not saying the problem with that design decision is that it's amoral (let's stipulate that it isn't). I'm saying that it's extremely unconventional, a landmine of orthogonal ideology buried in the architecture of the system. Before committing to building a new product in someone else's framework, I'd want to know about all such weird decisions, and about why they are that way. Maybe Urbit's principles are compatible with the way you think about every possible aspect of how your system will interact with any of its users ever (since that's what you're buying into when you literally adopt an entirely new network to build against and deploy on). But maybe not!
Most framework designs coercively project opinions about whether the efficiency of register-sized addresses are worth the flexibility tradeoff, or whether it should be easier to define new URL patterns versus making it easier to dispatch the full complement of HTTP verbs, or whether closures are first-class or sum types are worth the complexity. Not a lot of programming environments ask us to determine what double-digit percentage of the world's population is too irresponsible to deserve an address. Again: their words (almost; I changed the order).
I'm trying to be careful not to use loaded terms like the f-word you just used, by the way. What I think about Urbit's founder is not necessarily the same as what conclusions I'd draw about this particular system, which is, I think, fatally flawed on its own demerits.