Bradford26

Thanks for your comments. I agree that the ability to duplicate something does blur the line between right and wrong. I don't know the answer to that. I agree that the content of a message can't be owned, since a message is just an idea. An Analogous Example The example of radio waves and cell messages is analogous to sound waves and voice messages. When communicating verbally, you must send your sound waves in all directions, just like cell radio waves. There are certain things you can do to prevent people from intercepting the message, like whispering into someone's ear or closing your door, just like encryption on a cell radio wave. If your office neighbor closes their door to make a private phone call, you can sometimes hear muffled sound which can easily be dismissed, just like the cell radio listening for messages addressed to itself and dismissing the others. If you take a cup or directional microphone and put it against the wall to to hear the message clearly, it's just like setting up a computer program, or browser (or whatever) to eavesdrop on wireless communications. Eavesdropping is unethical, but it isn't immoral. "Maybe the ownership of something physical like a letter or parcel, or even an electronic device, but not a specific configuration of electromagnetic waves." I think you make an illogical leap when you list a specific configuration of electromagnetic waves along with parcels and electronic devices. Technically, it would be the electronic waves themselves! Do people own the electromagnetic waves that their cell phones generate? I submit that they do, because if you send out enough waves to make people sick, you'd be held responsible for the damage. Therefore, when you eavesdrop on encrypted wireless communication, you are manipulating electromagnetic waves that belong to someone else in order to extract a message that you know they do not want you to receive. That sounds very close to immoral to me.

Level of Deterrence - Are safeguards in place to prevent theft? Aggression depends on the person being affected by an action. There are situations when people are allowed to take things from others because they don't care if the items are taken, a washing machine on the curb, for example. However, if there are safeguards in place to communicate that an item is not available for taking, then it is no longer acceptable to take that item. Doors, fences, chains and locks all qualify as deterrents Level of Control - Is the owner known? It becomes tricky when control is lost or ownership isn't immediately clear. A stray dog may be owned, but without a collar or tracking chip, it's acceptable to pick the dog up and claim it. When the owner of the dog is clearly identified by a tag or tracking chip, then it is no longer acceptable to take the dog. Negatives can also accrue this way, in case the dog attacks someone or whatever. Level of difficulty in discovering the owner could also effect the level of control. Aggression Spectrum No Deterrence/No Control - No ownership Low Deterrence/No Control - Weak ownership. It would likely be a jerky move to take this. High Deterrence/No Control - Medium ownership. This would likely be stealing. No Deterrence/Low Control - Weak ownership. It would likely be a jerky move to take this. No Deterrence/High Control - Medium ownership. Taking this would likely be stealing. Low/High Deterrence/Low/High Control - Strong ownership. This would more likely be stealing. Radio Waves Radio waves might be classified as No Control/Low to High Deterrence since the owner isn't known and it usually (?) has some kind of encryption. However, I assume that by breaking the encryption, the original owner could be discovered. If so, then the classification changes to Low to High Control/Low to High Deterrence. Conclusion Based on the above analysis, I conclude that the NAP is broken somewhere along the spectrum when the level of deterrence (theft prevention) and level of control (known ownership) combine to create a high enough ownership value.

You're right. It is a verb. The Dictionary.com definition starts with, "To express or feel..." so it still seems like a feeling word. Other forms are Deploration (noun), Deplorer (noun), and Deploringly (adverb).

Deplore 1) to regret deeply or strongly; lament. 2) to disapprove of; censure. 3) to feel or express deep grief for or in regard to. Deplore works well because it addresses your feeling of regret for the injustice, disapproval of those responsible, and grief for those harmed.

Employers offer sick pay as a benefit. Sick pay is the allocation of an amount of your future income to receive when you are absent due to illness. This has two major benefits. First, it is insurance against a sudden loss of income due to an extended absence. Second, it encourages taking sick days for lesser illness in an effort to prevent major illness and longer absences. A good practice is for companies to pay out sick days at the end of the year to discourage employees spending them because they are about to disappear. This way, all employees get the benefit whether they take the days or not. Companies could allow employees to exchange their sick days for vacation days or simply make the employees use vacation days for illnesses. Inevitably, for every problem, a range of voluntary solutions are found. When I was diagnosed with cancer, I benefited from a program at my company where people could dedicate up to a certain amount of their paycheck to help me with whatever costs my cancer policy didn't cover. If I used it, their paychecks would be deducted by their fraction of the value. They had a similar program which allowed people to donate vacation days, since I went through my reserve pretty quickly.

Thanks for your feedback! "There is no reason to assume that inventive people should also be successful entrepreneurs." I agree. If you're not one of the entrepreneurs, outsource that job. The modern system forces you to outsource to the coercive system of the government. When you're forced to interact with a coercive system, morality is out the window, so you're not a bad person for getting a patent. "No one can invent new things, great things year after year." Successful companies manage to innovate over a long period of time. Maybe the only way to have long-term success as an inventor is to associate with a team of individuals or a large company. I don't know. Would there even be isolated inventors in the absence of patents? "Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions." What I meant by this was that, without the guns of the state enforcing patents, effective processes would be developed over time to solve the problem peacefully. Organizations might pitch inventions for inventors, or provide a framework for them to do it themselves. "I would not have minded organizing my business around something else than patents, but I could not, nor could anyone around." I agree. "Patents motivate inventors, at least they motivate me... In the absence of patents, all other things being equal, I would have done something else, like growing potatoes." Your second option was growing potatoes? People want to invest in cost saving inventions. It's win-win! As a company, I would want to make sure that I was paying the person who originally developed an idea, instead of a copycat who was just trying to profit from someone else's invention. As an inventor, the motivation may persist, since patents may just be replaced with whatever peaceful method the free market comes up with.

A patent is welfare for people who do not have the ability to convert their invention into cash or the capacity to continually innovate. Patents also inhibit people from developing innovative ways to profit from their inventions. The idea of patenting an invention and then collecting huge sums of money over a long period of time has always seemed like a get-rich-quick scheme to me. Unfortunately, the current system forces you to patent your inventions so that someone else doesn't wield the power against you. JeanPaul, if your company has been founded and organized around the patent model, then the company may have no ability to convert inventions into profit without patents. That's completely understandable. Why would you do it any differently, when patents are just about the only way to make money from an invention? Ultimately, asking how inventions would work in a free society is like asking how cotton will be picked without slavery. We don't know. Nobody does. We have some ideas. We only know for sure what is immoral and worth standing up for. The question you should be asking is, "In the absence of patents, how would the structure and decisions of my company be different?

The scale of the invention should determine your actions going forward. If the new tire is a minor improvement over normal tires, it makes more sense to sell it to a tire company. If the new tire is light years ahead of all other tires, it makes sense to gather investors and create a new tire manufacturing company. Next, don't talk about the invention in public, nor reveal anything about it to anyone (like how many new chemicals and range of cost for each). A researcher who may be close to the same invention could use subtle clues to come up with it and share it on the internet. Now that you've decided to sell your invention to a tire company, it is time to do the research. How much money does the new tire save for a prospective buyer? How much initial investment will it require to convert their tire factories? How long will it take before their investment in your invention will begin to pay off. It will be worth it to do a serious market analysis. The more information you have, the better equipped you'll be to maximize profit from the sale of your invention. How much time and money have you invested in this invention so far? What research did you to do determine if that amount of investment would pay off? It sounds like you have a team who helped create this. Is it a business? Does the business have any other revenue? If you expect (interesting word choice) to receive 25 million dollars over 10 years, doesn't it make sense to spend a small percentage of that amount to pitch the invention? I would travel to each and every tire manufacturer and pitch the invention (getting non-disclosure agreements the whole time) using all the research I've done. That would be a small price to pay for millions later. Additionally, you could pitch your idea to the research and development team at a tire manufacturer. Keep the NDA and get those tires on a race car or a Tesla or anywhere with high visibility. "How are you winning so many races?" "it's the JeanPaul brand tire formula!" *money comes raining down from the sky* Use your invention to get hired at a lucrative tire company. Demonstrate your scientific brilliance and maybe become an Experimental Tire Engineer at Yokohama Tires. These are a few ideas off the top of my head, I'm sure there are plenty more. One thing is certain though, your work has only just started. If the payoff is as great as you expect it to be, show up, dress up, and never give up!

Great point. How and when can external praise replace an internal goal mechanism? If the child has learned that the parents only respond to "me plus," or the child plus an accomplishment, then they are more likely to achieve solely for the praise. Unconditional love from the parents would definitely help temper this possibility. I don't think it's rational to never celebrate or say "good job" to someone who achieves. We shouldn't be expected to be completely self-reliant in this regard. Humans are social. Even the anti-social ones benefit from encouragement. Being involved with a group that builds each other up can be a very powerful force in a person's life.

These are great questions. Why should something be celebrated periodically? With anything worth celebrating, it's important to celebrate in a frequency and intensity appropriate for the event. Similarly, it's important not to over or under celebrate. A very large gift makes sense a few times a year, while smaller gifts like cards, fancy nights out or flowers can maintain their effect if they are more frequent. However, large fancy gifts, or extravagant nights out every day would quickly lose their effect and become meaningless. I think I understand your malice toward holidays. For example, when Valentines day rolls around, men are essentially forced to do something to maintain the status quo in their relationships. If they don't comply with the rules of the holiday, things get worse in their relationship. This has always seemed somewhat coercive to me. However; the activities that Josh was talking about are not coercive, bullying, or negative in any other way. In the example, it is important to explain that the celebration is not what makes the children adults, or that they have accomplished any great task simply by being alive (Although, that accomplishment might warrant a cake and balloons every, say, 365 days or so ). It can't be bad to celebrate genuine accomplishments with encouragement and kindness.

I think this is great! Getting encouragement from family and friends as they pass from one phase to another may make them proud of their accomplishment, reinforce their goals and dreams, and give them extra enthusiasm for the next phase. Celebrations that mark the passage of time may have different levels of importance to different people, but are not arbitrary. A big achievement or having a child is a great reason to celebrate, and it seems like it would be very important to mark the passage of time since those events. Wedding anniversaries are the same way. Why wouldn't you periodically celebrate something so great that happened? Another example might be to keep track of years since you were cured of cancer. I know you're just celebrating things 365 days apart from eachother, but how else could you do it?

This is a fantastic discussion. I feel like we've got the question surrounded and need to recognize a few nuances to get it solved. Where we agree I believe we all agree that it is fraud to misrepresent what you are selling. For example, if the contract states that you are selling a car that has 20k miles on it and it is later discovered that the car actually has 100k miles on it, that is fraud, a breach of contract and you owe restitution. Where we disagree Whether it is immoral to take advantage of someone else's lack of knowledge, unawareness, or gullibility. Is it immoral to tell a lie in an effort to manipulate someone's purchasing decisions if it DOESN'T involve misrepresenting what you are selling? To manipulate someone's reality for profit is unethical, but is it immoral? Can we use force to neutralize these individuals? Followup Questions Are there any aspects of society that contribute to gullibility? Are parents responsible for their children's gullibility? Should the gullible be considered victims, not of the manipulative salesman, but of bad parenting and/or schooling? If we place blame on being ill-prepared, does the solution look different? Could warranties or insurance solve this problem? Thanks for reading.

A Personal Story In high school, there was this popular guy who was dating a girl that I was physically attracted to. Everyone liked him, even though he wasn't very smart, and I was regularly made fun of. I was always so confused why so many people hung out with him and why they didn't see what I saw. One day, in weight training class, I see him walk in and... he has toilet paper hanging out of the back of his pants! "This is it!" I thought to myself, "I get to see the popular guy made fun of and shunned by the whole class!!" Nothing happened. People saw it. Nobody cared. How could this happen?! Why did nobody respond?! I realized that the popular guy was popular because of what other people need. They needed a person to revere and, subsequently, a person like me to pick on and put down. I think that your 'theory about a NASA conspiracy' is my 'toilet paper in the pants of the popular guy'. You believe it's the thing that will finally, once and for all, convince people that the government is corrupt and bad. However, if the government lied about the moon landing, it would merely be another lie to add to the ever-expanding pile of lies that fail to convince everyone that the government is corrupt and bad. It's time to consider that the government is something that people have a psychological need for. If this is the case, it's time to consider what events in their childhood or adult lives have caused them to be dependent on a corrupt and bad system and what makes them oblivious to these causes. One final question: If today, your theory is proven to be 100% true beyond a shadow of a doubt and is broadcast around the world for everyone to see, what will you do tomorrow?

Dwain Dibley, you seem to have two misunderstandings with the non-aggression principle. I'll try to explain what I think they are and offer an alternative way to look at it that might help clear the air. Misunderstanding #1 The non-aggression principle is an action. You are assuming that the non-aggression principle is an action that people can be violently forced to comply with. The Truth The non-aggression principle is more like a non-aggression proposal. When two people are interacting, the proposal says, "I won't aggress against you if you don't aggress against me." One or both parties are perfectly able to disagree with the proposal. However, they may not rationally complain about being aggressed against if they themselves are behaving aggressively. Misunderstanding #2 Self defense is a violation of the non-aggression principle. You are assuming that the non-aggression law dictates that anyone who chooses to comply to it may not use force in any way to defend themselves. The Truth The non-aggression principle is based around the concept of aggression. Self defense is not aggression, it counters aggression. Preventing someone from stealing from you or hurting you does not violate the non-aggression principle, since the person who is being defended against has already broken the non-aggression principle and is therefore no longer protected by it. I hope this helps and I look forward to your feedback.

Here are some of my thoughts about the ideas brought up so far. Making room for the next generation? It is not immoral to take up space and voluntarily exchanging goods. If there are fewer goods and less space because of overpopulation, then those goods and that space will cost more. They will continue to cost more until the price of the space/goods on earth is high enough to make settling another planet an economic choice. Additionally, as these costs go up, so does the cost of having children. When the cost of having children goes up, fewer children are born. Super rich only? Throughout history, technological advances are always very expensive. It follows that super rich people could afford something as advanced as robotic bodies. However, they are also the ones to discover the obscure bugs left in the process. Over time, more and more people will be able to afford this. The danger here is that if this technology beats Libertopia, then there will be "Universal Robotics" legislation arguing that there is a "right to robotics" which will ruin it all. More free time? Maintenance and Costs. Human bodies are fragile and high maintenance. Converting your body to a robot body would only introduce a whole new maintenance schedule that you must follow. A robot would still need to be recharged, oiled, buffed waxed and dried, calibrated, repaired. A robot would eventually get old and need parts replaced. A human mind in a robot body would still be frantically moving forward trying to be prepared for the next problem, all while continually earning enough money to support it. The good thing is, in Ancapistan, cheaper and better technology is always coming out which would help minimize these problems. Backups? Clones? Just like cell phones can gain new powers by installing an app, these robot-humans have the potential to be really amazing. Memory would suddenly be perfect, comprehension super fast, and you could learn anything instantly. Everyone would want to ensure that their minds were backed up regularly in case something went terribly wrong. How would subconsciousness work? Could you just erase all of your traumatic history? If a robot body went down for prolonged maintenance, would the robot dealership give you a fancy new model loaner body? Also, if you could transfer your mind into a loaner robot, couldn't you also duplicate your mind into another robot? Would the new robot version of yourself believe that he were you? Inside and Outside the Matrix. If your mind were digital, you could easily create virtual worlds to inhabit. Dumb worker robots could take care of all the maintenance and resource gathering and everyone could just exist in virtual worlds. At some point, humans may no longer exist in any real way. The planet would consist of worker robots maintaining computer systems that are constantly chugging away at virtual worlds. If somehow real world human-robots were no longer maintained, there would be no way for the minds to get back out.

As a rule, more competition is better for the consumer. Wikipedia describes how, when long lasting Japanese cars entered the US market, it forced US auto makers to increase the durability of their cars. The consumer is hurt when a company has a full or partial monopoly and competition is limited. However, in the case of print cartridges, there may be a few other things going on. 1) Companies create new printers pretty regularly. Third party vendors have to play catch up to create compatible cartridges. 2) If a company has a patent on a cartridge design or can somehow legally restrict third parties from copying their cartridges, they have monopoly powers and use them. 3) The goal is to minimize resource use for everything. It is likely possible to insert something which will measure the exact level of a cartridge and report it to the computer. However, if you have to pay for a new measuring device for each cartridge, the cartridges may no longer be competitively priced. The difference in performance does not outweigh the cost savings, so the cheaper solution is chosen. 4) Consumers would rather their cartridge stop printing before it's empty than have a printer which suddenly prints out blank pages without warning. There are some things that a consumer can do to protect themselves from planned obsolescence. 1) Don't buy the latest and greatest products unless the company has a history of products that meet your durability requirements. 2) Research the average life-span of the product and purchase the 2nd or later generation of it. 3) Buy an extended warranty. A company may have designed their product to last at least as long as the warranty. New products often have unforeseen weaknesses. An extended warranty will protect you. 4) Don't buy something that you can't afford to throw away. If the only reason that you can afford that fancy new phone is that someone will pay half for it in a few years, don't buy it. In the end, economics will always deal with companies fairly based on their product price and quality unless a monolithic organization with a monopoly on the initiation of force interferes. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks for reading.

This topic is interesting for me, so I'll take a stab at unraveling this riddle. Once upon a time... The story starts with a group of free people coming together with the goal of organizing society by using a centralized monopoly of force. Everyone within this group agrees that this is good and signs a contract implementing it. Upon signing the contract, the initiation of force is immediately removed from the equation, since any interaction between the state and members of this group is voluntary. This scenario only reinforces the concept of contract law and does not support the idea that a monopolistic state could arise from such an agreement. For the sake of exploration, we can ignore this conclusion. We can assume that these people sign this contract. What does the contract say? It says that the contract is for life, applies to your descendents unto infinity and cannot be undone under any circumstances. If an entire population was still convinced that this was good, then I'd wonder where this determination for imprisonment came from and how this group ever found themselves as free people to begin with. Lets break through that logical barrier as well. The entire population of this area are overjoyed with their new-found powerlessness. The state will save them from the terrors of freedom! What is the first act of this monopoly of the use of force? With a heavy gavel strike, the state decrees that everyone's personal property belongs to the state. Smartly, the state realizes that any young person who has not signed the contract could easily redraw the imaginary borders to exclude their private land. The state cannot abide getting smaller; therefore, ownership must be transferred to the state so land can't leave the contract. Once this happens, there's nothing that can be done. The good people who signed the contract find that the state owns them, their property and their offspring. The state begins it's propaganda machine and the rest is boring statistics. The Truth Many people posit the tale that this is how countries are formed. That everyone has the option to sign the contract and decides to do so. This is not how countries are formed. The state makes the contract and the state signs it. Then people are informed of the property transfer when they are threatened with force. If states were somehow a better alternative to voluntary association, then the story would have worked out fine because nobody would have chosen to remove themselves from the contract that they or their ancestors signed. Unfortunately, there is clear evidence that voluntarism beats out coercion in every respect. A society of free people would need to be brainwashed or contract simultaneous brain diseases for such an antithesis of freedom to form. Happily Ever After The imaginary society in this story consists of free individuals. Truly free individuals do not desire to organize society through coercion and would never give up their freedom or sell their children's lives without significant coercion.

I'm glad that I could help. If a person behaves in such a way as to cause others to perceive impending harm, could that be considered initiation of force? If this counts as initiation of force, then a "stand your ground" instance might simply be defending yourself against the behavior which caused a perception of impending harm. Thinking about it this way relies more on the perceived impending harm than on whether physical harm was actually about to happen.

I submit that a person is said to have committed a crime based on commission, accusation and intent. Commission The person must do something that effects someone else's property. Intent The person must have effected someone else's property on purpose or through negligence of some kind. Accusation This term is not helpful, since being accused of a crime after a person effects someone else's personal property on purpose doesn't necessarily make them a criminal. Violation of Free Will of the Owner A person must purposefully effect property belonging to an owner who does not want them to effect the property in that way or at all. This works better because it places the focus on property rights instead of law or rules of society. Examples Here I will examine each combination of these three principles to determine criminality in each case. +Commission +Intent +Violation of Free Will This is clearly a crime. A person who effects something belonging to someone else on purpose against the owner's free will is committing a crime. +Commission +Intent +Violation of Free Will -Violation of Free Will Sometimes the owner does not care that the property was effected. Does the criminality change? The person was intending to violate the free will of the owner. Since he intended to violate free will and still committed the action, I consider this a crime. +Commission +Intent -Violation of Free Will In this case, the person takes something on purpose which belongs to someone, knowing that the owner is indifferent or wants them to take it. This does not consititute a crime. Edit: It might be helpful to think about this one as though the property owner has relinquished his ownership of the property. +Commission -Intent +Violation of Free Will In this case, a person has effected someone else's property on accident. They may owe or volunteer restitution, but they are not a criminal since the violation was accidental. +Commission -Intent -Violation of Free Will A person who effects someone else's property on accident while the owner does not care is clearly not a criminal. -Commission +Intent +Violation of Free Will This one could be controversial. A person who intends to effect someone's property against their will has done nothing wrong unless thoughts can be crimes. If thoughts cannot be crimes, then this person has not committed a crime. -Commission +Intent -Violation of Free Will It's not a crime to intend to take something from someone who wouldn't care if they took it. -Commission -Intent +Violation of Free Will I think this would apply if someone is offended by your opinion or choice of clothing or nonviolent behavior. I don't consider these crimes. -Commission -Intent -Violation of Free Will I'll include this for completeness. This could possibly be sin. Sinning is accidentally not effecting someone's property when they want you to... or something. I think this summarizes the concepts pretty well. Thanks for reading. I look forward to your feedback.

Thanks for this. I have enjoyed thinking about it. My initial thought is that both Stefans should behave identically, considering that all their atoms and energy are in the same configuration. However: this reminds me of a scene in Into the Universe with Steven Hawking. In the scene, Hawking is describing the Big Bang. It shows how, if the explosion of matter was perfectly symmetrical, and the distances between relative pieces were the same, then the gravity would effectively be neutralized, since each piece of matter would be equidistant from the nearest pieces. It demonstrated this by showing a wood floor with ballbearings evenly spaced, not moving because gravity was equal in all directions. Then it rolled a single ball out of alignment and simulated how gravity would move the balls around after that. The way the balls moved looked like a nebula. Essentially, it explained that there was something that made that first piece of matter move out of alignment to set the chain in motion. The point of this scene was to demonstrate that there is a level or randomness to everything in the universe and, without it, the universe would be radically different. I think Wuzzums is right, at the atomic level, there is an element of randomness. Now that I think of it, that randomness, within a very short span of time, could lead to enormous diversions from the "original" course. Considering the number of microorganisms in the body, the number of sensory receptors; etc., It's likely that a physical itch, or twitch or something could easily change what happens. Could mental itches or twitches happen just as easily and change the conversation?

I'm sad to hear about your experience with your family. I have some ideas. I hope they help. Have you recently made a concious decision to withdraw communication with your family? Why? Does your father's email change something? One pitfall that I am concerned about is that you share a number of conclusions. For example: "there's no interest or curiosity and respect between anyone." I'm worried that your father could say, "Yes there is." and the conversation would be derailed right away. Instead, it could be more effective to express that you feel you are ignored and disrespected. It is much more difficult to dismiss a person's feelings, and in this way, you may be able to make a better connection in the conversation. I believe the first step is to communicate your feelings. I'm afraid that if you communicate expectations before they understand your feelings, then they may interpret them as demands.

What benefit do you get by associating energy with God? If this were merely a theory of energy, would the title of this thread be different? Please help me understand how changing the definition of 'god' is helpful?

There is no way to tell if the government-provided services are beneficial or detrimental compared to other solutions because you may not choose to pay for a different solution. Therefore, you cannot be said to have benefitted from the system. The individual from the other forum did not mention property rights in his argument. When I see an argument based on the idea that you can always move to another country, the inevitable conclusion is that the government owns everyone and everything within it's imaginary geographic outline. Someone who promotes that idea is talking about absolute forceful enslavement and isn't actually debating with you. Something Stef said in a podcast is that society is scar tissue. I imagine that when people talk about the social contract they are talking about scar tissue, especially since this individual says that the social contract existed before anyone had conceived of it. Thank you for reading.

This article presupposes the existence of God. In summary: "God exists, therefore God exists." I found the article manipulative and dishonest.

I think this article is right and wrong. Definition Privilege is "a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to one person or group of people." The author is right that a privilege can be an advantage that isn't earned; however, it may also be an earned advantage. Right or Wrong? The author argues that it is wrong to exercise a privilege. Unearned privileges can be things like height, intelligence, being born to a family with alot of money. Being better at basketball because you are tall, getting scholorships because you are smart or driving a car that your parents bought you when you turned 16 are not "insidious" actions. Privileges are Passive According to the definition, a privilege is granted or available. A privilege which is not earned and invisible is completely passive. The person benefiting from the unearned privilege has not done anything to deserve it. How is the benefit experienced by privileged people? By the way other people interact with them. The only way that a person could experience an unearned privilege while interacting with other people is if the other people are interacting involuntarily or in a bigoted manner. If people always react a certain way to you, it would be easy to mistake a biggotted or involuntary interaction as something that you have earned. That may be the strongest lesson to learn from this topic. Who's Fault is it? By putting the blame on the person with unearned privilege, the author is condemning a person who has done no wrong while absolving the bigoted or involuntary interaction of the people "granting" the privilege. A rich white guy who got his job over a minority, for example, is benefitting from the biggotry of the employer and may not know about the specifics of the hiring process. Voluntary Privilege Earned privilege is another way to call voluntary interaction. Unearned privilege is frequently related to bigotry or initiation of the use of force. Let us focus on those two things.