Why should legacy addresses be treated any differently?
There are some early addresses older than the most recent legacy addresses that were not protected behind a hash of a hash, so those coins can be stolen if enough computing power is put to them. The later legacy addresses are protected by a hash of a hash, so the public keys are unknown until they are spent, for those addresses which are re-used, which is not recommended these days.
You're talking about P2PK (pay to public key), where the public key act as address. However, other address are equally vulnerable if it's public key is known.
I don't see why we should care at all what "Satoshi's Vision" was.
How can you say something like that? Of course we should care what his vision was. Now about that little quotations you provided. All I can about that is "my bad". 
But should we care when his vision doesn't work on reality (e.g. one-cpu-one-vote)?