Again, one must distinguish what are one's rights from what one thinks that ought to be one's rights. The former are defined by laws and courts. For the latter, different people will have different opinions. Without a government, those opinions are irrelevant: in a dispute, the side with more guns, more thugs, or better skills will prevail.
In particular, without laws and courts there is no concept of "property". Property is distinct from possession; it is the right to have possession. If a thief takes your car, he will have possession, but the car is still your property; and the government is supposed to use its power (with force, if needed) to take the car from the thief, and give possession back to you. On the other hand, if you default on payments and the contract says that property of the car returns to the seller, the government is bound to support him in taking the car from you. Ditto if you have possession of money that the government thinks it is their property (i.e., unpaid taxes).
So you are saying that property is a social construct ?
I think the notion of property is intrinsically linked with privacy, and is
a natural consequence of the fact that we are endowed with thoughts, aims and aspirations
that are not immediately visible to others. These constitute the primal basis
of ownership, and tangible things that one acquires to make her life better
are natural extension of them, and so they too are one's private property.
This concept of natural ownership precedes governments.
Whatever happens to Bitcoin, its greatest value is that it has demonstrated
that you can have transferable and divisible digital property without resort
to central authority that sanctions its use. This is like a first shot in a revolution.
From now on, we have a realistic prospect of developing "smart" contracts
- like payment of a car for example -.that are enforced by algorithms and not by
"the side with more guns, more thugs", i.e. the government.