What Matters More: Private Property or Equality?

[Ucy]

As far as Bitcoin space is concerned, Property right, like any other Bitcoin right or principle, will not be violated, unless for stolen properties.

Giving or charity is going to be voluntary.
 There are some kinds of voluntary giving that can encourage many people to give — The givers will need to be rewarded. I however don't think it's in the best interest of society to let the givers know when or what reward will be given them. Society should eventually become more favorable to them. They will probably notice it and realize why

[Felicity_Tide]

The question is: would such a measure be fair? Should the property rights of those who took the risk and bought early be fully respected, or would redistribution be justified in order to reduce inequalities that have accumulated over generations?

Lol, this idea has nothing to do with fairness.
It's just a way of trying to create an illusion of equality when the world has never been truly equal.
If reverse were to be the case, I don't think government would suggest that those who suffered losses, be compensated by regular income earners. There are far more ways to make the world a better place rather than attempting to split what a very few took risk for, just to create a false illusion of equality. I doubt if the government even believes in equality or fairness.

[suzanne5223]

In response, the government proposes a measure: anyone holding more than 2 BTC must contribute 10% of their holdings to be redistributed among people who never had access to Bitcoin or were unable to acquire it in its early days.What would you do?

I would strongly oppose this measure straightforwardly because it's an idea of the government stealing from individual holders in broad daylight. Every early BTC holder/investor voluntarily acquired BTC, accepting the loss that may come with it, when most people ignore it.
If the idea is voluntary contribution and helping people build wealth. I do support it.

The question is: would such a measure be fair?

How is that fair? It is a robbery.

Should the property rights of those who took the risk and bought early be fully respected, or would redistribution be justified in order to reduce inequalities that have accumulated over generations?

Of course, the property rights of early Bitcoiners should be respected, not to enforce a modern slavery concept.

[Orpichukwu]

Exactly. Early holders took the risk when Bitcoin was far from proven. It doesn't make sense to punish them now for being early, especially in a system that's supposed to be voluntary and decentralized.

Those should just be some sort of imagination and should not hold water or be possible; besides, if such a type of thing were possible, imagine if the risk they took then or those who took a different type of risk did not come out successful. Who will compensate them for such a loss? If the only way for distributing wealth is through sharing others' wealth, they should go with their personal properties and holdings.

[Stormisover]

The question is: would such a measure be fair? Should the property rights of those who took the risk and bought early be fully respected, or would redistribution be justified in order to reduce inequalities that have accumulated over generations?

Lol, this idea has nothing to do with fairness.
It's just a way of trying to create an illusion of equality when the world has never been truly equal.
If reverse were to be the case, I don't think government would suggest that those who suffered losses, be compensated by regular income earners. There are far more ways to make the world a better place rather than attempting to split what a very few took risk for, just to create a false illusion of equality. I doubt if the government even believes in equality or fairness.

There is no way equality can be talk about over what was worked for among those that actually worked for it and those that didn't work for it, it is never a good a judgement and I can't believe that the government can consent to such, whatever you worked for and earned gives you control over it and anything altering this potential of yours is an opposition, anything forcefully redistribution of your possession should be considered an inequality not fairness, if we talking about equality and fairness then we can have a situation where what is meant for the general public should be shared among the public and not what an individual or group of people worked so hard to earned.

[macson]

The question is: would such a measure be fair? Should the property rights of those who took the risk and bought early be fully respected, or would redistribution be justified in order to reduce inequalities that have accumulated over generations?

What do you mean by fair? they risked their money in the early days of Bitcoin and still believe that it will be worth more in the future. It was the result of their own efforts, and it is FAIR that they got what they got today. Let's just put aside the issue of inequality in this case because if we talk about it, it's actually not relevant to the function of Bitcoin, which was introduced as a digital currency, not to solve the problem of equality.

[Mahiyammahi]

There's a flaw in this thought experiment OP that is Bitcoin holder's did create not equal among everyone rather than simply participated in Open Market. Anyone could have brought bitcoin . It's totally unfair to punish people that are joined early while other's joined in late.
Well the Bitcoin didn't created the problem itself if inequality become this extream. The real issue is to be looked upon the society how it's handle wealth and opportunity.
Today's it with bitcoin Tomorrow can be land , stocks , gold or business.

A fair society should always expand for opportunity , not punishing who took the risks early before everyone else could have saw the actual value.

[uchegod-21]

The concept of decentralization will be defeated if the government can force people who have taken the risks over the years to surrender their Bitcoins, all for a selfish reason we call fairness. There is nothing fair there. It will only be fair if the government creates a conducive environment that allows each individual the freedom to take their own risks and secure their Bitcoins themselves after buying.

It will be fair if everyone is free to create their own wealth according to the level of their capital, risk tolerance, and understanding. "Robbing Paul to pay Peter" is never a good approach.

If the government is going to insist on its wealth redistribution approach, it should be ready to teach investors how to invest to increase their wealth, including providing security education. Some people know nothing about this.