This is one of those comments that I didn't think much about but now I see it's kind of popular for some reason. Guess it was short and simple -- those seem to be the most important parameters lately.

Anywho, if you are going to quibble about Aurelius, then I will change the question and posit that no one has ever had anything given to them entirely freely. There's an old popular reddit post where the child of a billionaire (or some such) details all the terrible things that entails, and then someone who is very poor comes along and adds their perspective. Both made good points and everything was quite polite. It was pleasing. To me, the former seemed like Brave New World and the latter 1984. Both bad.

So maybe there's more to it than just "having" everything. Hidden costs. Mostly I just wanted to take a turn setting up an absolute -- it seemed only fair. But there's truth in it as well.

As for Aurelius, it's hard to imagine anyone coming closer to having everything freely given than a Roman emperor, born an aristocrat. Yet the Meditations speak for themselves. They contain some anachronisms, but for the most part Aurelius has a firmer understanding about the (lack of) value of many things than any philosopher since. He suffered, to be sure, so it's fair to say that he understood the value (or lack) of happiness, for example, because of his life. But he never wanted materially, and he never failed to garner respect wherever he went -- but he takes the true measure of honor and greed without hesitation.