Does a contemporary revolution require blood and property destruction?

[branford]

11. I'm unclear as to your point.

If you mean distributing information in violation of current patents and copyrights, the act of distribution will destroy their value.

For instance, you reveal the secret formula for Coke or pirate the new Taylor Swfit album. Once everyone has it, it's value becomes de minimis, and the creators are disincentivized to produce more without such protections or profit.

In the short-term you might be able to share and produce important things like cheap drugs, but ultimately you will not have "re-distributed" wealth so much as destroyed value and disinclined others who are capable from producing more or innovating.

If you mean hacking peoples' bank accounts and credit cards, it might be possible, again in the very, very short term, but ultimately the relevant institutions and government would adapt, and the punishments for the perpetrators would be swift, severe and unforgiving, and I believe largely with popular support.

The biggest problem with such a "digital revolution" is that it lacks democratic legitimacy. It changes the veritable 1% from bankers to computer hackers. It would be unsurprising if the vast majority of people preferred the former over the latter. The devil you know . . .