I think the word privilege should be reserved for those things which inherently everyone can't have. You can imagine a world where everyone has a flying car, but you can't imagine one where everyone has a personal servant (because then the servants would also have servants, who would have servants etc.)
To be an elected representative, or a leader, is a privilege because if everyone was, no one would be. To be rich in absolute terms isn't a privilege, but to be richer than average is a privilege. Same with status, beauty, talent etc.
Calling things privilege which aren't, conflates things which are zero-sum and things which aren't.
> Calling things privilege which aren't, conflates things which are zero-sum and things which aren't.
We already have "Zero Sum" to describe the thing you're talking about. Privilege is a different word, which refers to "a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people" (Dictionary.com)
You can try to fight to redefine the word, but recognize you're waging an uphill battle against how everyone else uses it
We need different words for rights, immunities or benefits that everyone can have and rights, immunities or benefits that you necessarily have at other's expense. I have to fight uphill either way, since these two are so often conflated by activists.
But I'm not alone or the first to insist on making the distinction.
To be an elected representative, or a leader, is a privilege because if everyone was, no one would be. To be rich in absolute terms isn't a privilege, but to be richer than average is a privilege. Same with status, beauty, talent etc.
Calling things privilege which aren't, conflates things which are zero-sum and things which aren't.