> The "victim" voluntarily gave that money away.

This explanation, much like its sibling "voluntary transaction" defense of market failures and economic coercion, sounds to me like a bully who hits their victim with their own arm, and then exclaims, "stop punching yourself!".

If the person who lost the money had to use smart contracts, you've got a point. If they used them because they thought they were a good idea, I hope they learned their lesson.

Agreed, but the crypto crowd wants smart contracts to be ultimately used by everyone, which means (in their hypothetical world, which I hope never materializes) many if not most uses will be of the "had to use" kind.

That only holds right up until a judge disagrees and orders the transfer reversed.