CliffordCard

to prove how stupid they are.

Chapter One precedes with some debunking of simplifications / disclaimers about what its not saying / very careful rhetoric which I cannot replicate.

I think this is the thesis

We are not concerned here with the ultimate consequence of rule by terror—namely, that nobody, not even the executors, can ever be free of fear; in our context we are dealing merely with the arbitrariness by which victims are chosen, and for this it is decisive that they are objectively innocent, that they are chosen regardless of what they may or may not have done. At first glance this may look like a belated confirmation of the old scapegoat theory, and it is true that the victim of modern terror does show all the characteristics of the scapegoat: he is objectively and absolutely innocent because nothing he did or omitted to do matters or has any connection with his fate. There is, therefore, a temptation to return to an explanation which automatically discharges the victim of responsibility: it seems quite adequate to a reality in which nothing strikes us more forcefully than the utter innocence of the individual caught in the horror machine and his utter inability to change his fate. Terror, however, is only in the last instance of its development a mere form of government. In order to establish a totalitarian regime, terror must be presented as an instrument for carrying out a specific ideology; and that ideology must have won the adherence of many, and even a majority, before terror can be stabilized.

In a post-scarcity society, manufacturing would be cheap. Goods are easy to come by, keeping us comfortable and fed. We can spend our time at other pursuits, such as the development of futuristic technology. Some economists argue that such abundance is impossible. Cheaper food, they suggest, will grow more mouths to feed. For data, on the third hand, we already have a post-scarcity economy. With current equipment, it is nearly free to copy data. One original movie, song, game, or program... can be distributed to the internet overnight. Access to these services would be universal.

Predictably. Moneyed interests enforce artificial scarcity. Legions of programmers, lawyers, and other hacks extract payment from anyone sharing in the culture. They dont care who they exclude, only maximizing their own share. The U.S. legal system changes its rules to suit the powerful. For example, The Copyright Act of 1976, bought by bribes from Disney Company, expanded the length of copyright from 56 to 75 years. Now its over 100 years.

100 years is too long

What about living memory? Show an elder -- say a 70-year-old human -- one of the best movies they saw 50 years ago. Maybe they have an important perspective! But that classic movie may be inaccessible. Better content gets more expensive, and older content gets rarer. Lastly, the elders die. Those cultural moments, connections between real life and stories still locked away a century later, are lost.

Printed books fall apart. Ancient tombs decay. But data is cheap. Lets protect it!

A random interval charging up its jump before jumping a proportional distance, it would be a much more dangerous and interesting mob.

Today it is as more valuable as when it was created. Anybody who gets the chance could benefit from watching it.