I'd just been getting around to reading this Bitcoin Tech Talk's Bitcoin Fundamentals Series, when I came across this section in part 3
One of the fundamental questions regarding property is that between property and sovereignty, which comes first?
Some influential thinkers, such as Harrington & Locke, believed that property predated sovereignty. They believed humans intuitively understand property, even without the existence of a state.
To them the primary function of a state is to protect property rights. A sovereign state is judged on its merits to fulfill this responsibility. Locke went further and stated that individuals have the right to rebel against the state if it fails in its duty to preserve property rights. Adam Smith, the father of capitalism and modern economics, had a similar view. Smith recognized that property and government were dependent on each other, and argued that “civil government could not exist without property, as its main function is to safeguard property ownership”. (Smith differed with Locke, however, on whether property rights are “natural” — he believed property rights are “acquired” rights, not “natural” rights).
In contrast, other thinkers, most prominently Hobbes, believed it was the opposite, that property is a creation of the state. He regarded property simply as the product of authority and the acceptance of that authority.
I guess most free-market capitalists would scoff at the idea that property rights are acquired. At least, to speak for myself, I had taken this for granted until just now. For such an old debate, can we safely assume we've gotten it all worked out?
Disclaimer I'm not a socialist. My world view happens to be that man are stewards with the responsibility to tend to the material things. For efficiency sake, it makes sense to me to preserve property. But is it 'natural' that mine should be mine and not yours?
Does "everyone really get bitcoin at the price they deserve?"
Is it 'natural' for someone who came across bitcoin in the early 2010s that they should be so much farther ahead than class of 2020? Of course, it's much easier to say "you get it at the price you deserve" for those who got in early and didn't sell (not saying this was easy). But is that also to say that for those who didn't get it, they didn't deserve it?
My personal take - at least, my belief - is that perhaps you had to know what you were looking at and this took some level of self-determination. However, "everyone gets bitcoin at the price they deserve," seems like a meme that really discredits the amount that chance (or call it fate, luck, providence, or God's favour) actually played.