Some of the members may be members of street gangs and there could be a street gang, mafia, or gangster element to it. It's a criminal organization which relies on extortion so you can expect that if extortion goes on, it would be hard to break free from this sort of organization. Anonymous may have a lot of dirt on Mr. Brown or on any member who gets close to the organization. This could be any embarrassing information, such as that some members are potential pedophiles, or maybe other members have given their nudes to a member of Anonymous and this could be released, or maybe another members identity is in the possession of Anonymous and could be released to the feds(doxed and swatted).
FTFA: "I'm tired of the drama," Brown told Threatpost in a phone interview May 10. "You've got kids fighting for control of an IRC channel."
I'm not interested in what Mr. Brown has to say. I'm interested in what Anonymous has to say about why he left. He's going to spin it any way he likes to be in his favor. What does the group think of him now?
It's also possible that he's a dumbass too.
FTFA: "I'm a researcher. I'm into revolutionary stuff. But there are other people for whom its about exerting power"
OK not only possible, but extremely likely.
It's this anti government attitude that takes down groups like these. If they want to be a human rights organization, they did and can do a lot of good focusing on that. But when they focus on just one government, singling out the USA, this is not going to be very smart or very good for the members of Anonymous. While Libya or Egypt might not be able to do anything about Anonymous, the NSA, FBI, CIA, DEA and other three letter organizations have the resources and assets to wipe Anonymous out. I'm guessing the core members understand this and aren't interested in being tortured like Bradley Manning.
And it should be obvious to anyone why. Mr. Brown is focused on the sort of activities designed to elicit the maximum response by the most powerful military and government in the world. He is focusing on finding corruption in the US government, in the US military.
This is either a tactical error of epic proportions, or it's part of a deliberate design by his FBI handlers to turn him into the ultimate informant. I'm not accusing or saying with any degree of certainty that Mr. Brown is an informant. I'm saying that when people deliberately provoke the government, or talk about revolution in the USA, usually the loudest public speaker talking about it is the biggest informant.
I believe Anonymous cut him out of the picture because Anonymous does not trust him anymore. He isn't a hacker, he's a journalist. He came into Anonymous from the perspective of an observer/journalist. If he isn't participating in the ops and does not have a reputation as being an actor, it makes a lot of sense for them to push him out. The attention of the media usually brings the attention of the feds.
Barret Brown if he was every really in this group will find out soon that quitting isn't as easy as making a public declaration. That is perhaps the main reason not to join this sort of group, when you join they own you and you cannot quit.
As far as Barret Brown being the public face, that was a stupid idea in the first place which smelled like a setup. The guy also released a crappy manual on opsec on pastebin. Couldn't he have made a PDF? A website? It didn't have much substance either.
Let's face it, a group like Anonymous was never supposed to have a Public Face. It's a vigilante group. If Mr. Brown has quit the group it's possible he quit because he's been turned informant for the FBI. It's also possible he quit because he's been discovered. It's also possible he quit because of a legitimate dispute. But we cannot just take his word on it.
We need to hear what Anonymous has to say about him.
The NSA doesn't recruit people by telling them that they will be spying on Americans. I have met an NSA recruiter, and this is the story they tell you: As a cryptologist at the NSA, you will be working on interesting mathematics, mathematics you won't find in academia or in industry, and your work will help protect American lives. So say you are a 28 year old, you just finished a PhD in math or CS; wouldn't such a job be tempting?
The people who run the show at the NSA are not idiots. They know how to work with geniuses who might have a moral objection to spying on Americans. They know how to convince people that their work will only be used against foreigners, and how to get those people to put as much effort into their work as possible. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that most NSA mathematicians and computer scientists are aware of how their work is actually being used, except in rare cases where it is reported in the mass media (like the wiretapping scandal).
I agree with everything you are saying. I would think this would be common sense but I guess a lot of really smart people aren't all that street smart. The military recruiters do the same sorta thing, to get people to enlist.
I completely agree that customers who buy a lot of games and who are clearly of the higher income bracket should pay a bit more for games and entertainment. I would support this idea, as it would probably cut down on piracy. Most of us don't mind paying something, but if we are college students or struggling to find a job we simply cannot afford $50-60 a game.
I guess the people working at the NSA are the last to suspect that the NSA would spy on everybody in the world. But seriously what exactly did they think the NSA was building and doing this whole time?
The NSA, along with all the other agencies probably spy on as many people as they are technologically able. If they could watch us all for cheap enough they would. So what do technological advances mean? It means more people will be watched. It means more collection and more intelligence.
I'd say has a better track record than TrueCrypt only because GNUPG is open source and you can see the code. Basically the encryption is just fine, just create a soldier, encrypt it, then sync it. It might be possible to set the folder to auto-encrypt on the client side and upload encrypted via sync.
It's only a matter of time before a website like whosarat.com moves in and takes advantage of this live court reporting idea. Inquiring minds want to know who the snitches are.
The MPAA hasn't created a damn thing. Artists create, MPAA pimps artists on a massive scale. They own the rights to the creations, but they don't create a damn thing.
The RIAA hasn't created a damn thing. Artists create, RIAA pimps artists on a massive scale. They own the rights to the creations, but they don't create a damn thing.
The MPAA wants to control the entertainment sphere of the world. They don't want competition from newer more modern companies, so they use the law to guarantee no competition can exist. They don't want the "customer" to have control, they want it so they can maximize profits for themselves.
They just don't care about us the consumer. And they hate the competition. So they win by using the law because they can't win in the market place.
Because we know they need welfare to profit. They have to invent imaginary persons (corporations), and imaginary objects (intellectual property), both which defy the laws of physics in their favor but never in the favor of consumers.
Immoral corporations, they don't age, they don't die, but the powers that be expect us to accept them as persons.
Imaginary property, that is to be treated as physical objects when it's 1s and 0s, copying is equated with stealing, but the powers that be expect us to believe in it.
So in order for them to profit, we have to go schizophrenic and believe in imaginary shit which defies the laws of physics? The basis for their beliefs is unscientific at the foundation, and they don't care. They'll tell us that the earth is flat and make it true by court ruling, and then charge us to walk across the flat surface which they'll claim to own. But that doesn't change the fact that the earth is round, that they don't actually own it except on paper. They might hijack the government to protect their profits militarily, the government might believe that corporations are persons, the government might believe in their concept of intellectual property, and the government might invade privacy, abuse human rights and diminish civil rights to protect their profits, but it's all about the money right?
I'd use a car analogy, but I've got a better one. Let's say you are a kid who walks to school every day, and every day you pass by a bully who demands you give him part of your lunch money. Every day he demands a dime. You fork it over. It's only a dime, and you've still got enough to buy your lunch. Then he starts demanding a dollar. Wait a minute, that's a lot of money and you won't be able to buy your own lunch if you pay him.
It's more that I'd be paying that bully to protect me from the other bullies who don't speak the same language and who are gang members.
So basically, I'll either be a bully myself or I'll be paying a bully. This means you either have your own government like the mafia in which you pay the Don, or you have a monarchy where you pay the prince, king or queen, or you have a government where you pay the President, the Congress and the contractors. Either way you pay the violent bullies of the world not to kill you, or enslave you. And only when they start killing and enslaving you do you have to fight. What you are saying is you'd be willing to have a revolution rather than pay higher taxes? Really? Good luck being on the cointelpro list.
You've got two options. You either pick a different way to school (move your factories and production overseas where taxes are lower),
Unless you aren't a rich business owner, in which case you can't pick a new school and you have to pay the bullies at the school you are at.
or start hiding your money so the bully thinks you don't have any and doesn't take what you clearly don't have (use the existing tax incentives and deductions to reduce AGI.)
But once again it doesn't work like that. Because the bully has so many informers/snitches telling him everything you do and where you hide your money. And on top of that you have to deal with the gangs, which aren't populated by bullies but by people like you who joined gangs to protect themselves form bullies. Since you aren't paying the bully anymore there is no one to protect you from these hooligan gangs who are just as likely to take your money as take your life.
Your existence diminishes my liberty, too. I want what you have. I am not free to take it from you. I want my LIBERTY!
This is why we have a government.
Health insurance companies are not what drive costs up. It seems obvious, doesn't it? If costs were lower, they'd have to pay out less to cover you and more of what they take in would be profit. No, what drives costs up is MALPRACTICE insurance.
Where is your proof? I don't really believe that at all. I think the cost of drugs and treatments are what keep costs high. Why should drugs cost so much?
The money the doctor pays so he won't be bankrupted by a simple mistake, or even by a procedure that went pefectly but didn't turn out the way the patient wanted.
What are you talking about?
And the costs of the unnecessary tests that he orders because he doesn't want to miss that one in a million chance that you don't have the same cold that everyone else is coming in with and get sued by your estate. That money gets tacked on the bill you pay, and then onto the health insurance company.
So when the cost of bread and water goes up, then you have to do what? Spend even less money? Find something else to cut from your budget? If you know the cost of bread and water will go up every 3 years for possibly the rest of your life, but you refuse to accept a promotion which would increase your revenue so that you'd have more to spend, then eventually your cost of bread, water, would cause you to lose most of what you currently own. This doesn't work, so this is why people take promotions, this is why corporations seek to boost profits. Why shouldn't individuals and governments seek to boost profits by increasing revenue? Profit for government is tax revenue, not cutting costs. Just like corporations that only cut costs, don't create jobs and end up outsourcing the jobs to cut costs, end up laying people off to cut costs, etc.
It's how I fixed my deficit, while my wages held steady. Canceled the cable, canceled the cellphone, turned off the heat, et cetera. Same principle applies at the national level - just cut spending on unnecessary bullshit (like wars, studying butterfly sex, renovating congressional offices, and so on).
It doesn't work that way. It's the unnecessary BS that creates the middle class and allows private sector corporations to have people to sell products to. So unless you plan to sell your products to the chinese, then you have to accept that all most profit and increase revenue for the economy to properly grow. This includes the government, it too must increase revenue as it is part of the economy, provides jobs, buys products from private corporations, etc.
And then you raise taxes. Just spending less today doesn't mean the cost of healthcare wont rise as the population grows larger and sicker. So just cutting costs without raising taxes wont work. You have to cut costs and increase revenue.
Why should the government save grandma?
The government is a human rights corporation, as well as a defense corporation. The US Constitution shows this if you read it. Capitalism, corporate personhood, and corporate profits are not in the US Constitution. I'm not saying the government should literally save grandmas life, but defense of liberty is in the Constitution and corporations are an oppressive force. They diminish liberty, and this includes health insurance corporations.
Paying for education... well, first there's the racket of Universities always increasing their tuition by the amount the government allows students to borrow, but more importantly it's the only kind of loan you can't discharge in bankruptcy. Student lending is a veritable goldmine for the government, and if they didn't have laws protecting their goldmine you can bet your bottom dollar that private banks would take up the mantle. Higher education is so lucrative it's ridiculous.
I agree. So is debt. So the banks aren't any better encouraging people to buy houses they cannot afford.
Unemployment? Well, that's insurance more or less. You pay an unemployment tax, and then if you later become unemployed you can collect.
And this is why government should solve healthcare. It will cost in taxes, but the government would be the better institution and probably the only institution to handle it. Profiting from sickness is as bad as profiting from prison. It's not going to reduce costs, it increases costs.
Losing social security? Fine by me. Let the workers take the ridiculous amount of money they pour into that system every paycheck and let them invest it on their own. Shoot, even mandate that you must invest a certain percent of your income somewhere if you're worried about people not doing it. Education? Well, see above. If you're in the U.S., you pay out the nose for it. Healthcare.. not really sure how taxes are related to that.
That's because you don't plan to retire. You plan to commit seppuku when that time comes, right?
If you don't know the difference then you are a corporatist posing as a libertarian. A real libertarian believes in human rights, a corporatist only believes in rights for corporations.
"Then it can be specialized, so that violent games or movies are taxed more for example."
Why? Since when should taxes be used to essentially create a form of censorship through price fixing?
It's not price fixing or censorship. It's stuff you don't need costing more than it did yesterday.
If you can't afford to get fat off ice cream and liquor, too bad. It's a recession. It's better for you to lose weight than for someone to die because healthcare had to be cut.
Slashdot Mirror
What? They're like a street gang now?
Some of the members may be members of street gangs and there could be a street gang, mafia, or gangster element to it. It's a criminal organization which relies on extortion so you can expect that if extortion goes on, it would be hard to break free from this sort of organization. Anonymous may have a lot of dirt on Mr. Brown or on any member who gets close to the organization. This could be any embarrassing information, such as that some members are potential pedophiles, or maybe other members have given their nudes to a member of Anonymous and this could be released, or maybe another members identity is in the possession of Anonymous and could be released to the feds(doxed and swatted).
FTFA: "I'm tired of the drama," Brown told Threatpost in a phone interview May 10. "You've got kids fighting for control of an IRC channel."
I'm not interested in what Mr. Brown has to say. I'm interested in what Anonymous has to say about why he left. He's going to spin it any way he likes to be in his favor. What does the group think of him now?
It's also possible that he's a dumbass too.
FTFA: "I'm a researcher. I'm into revolutionary stuff. But there are other people for whom its about exerting power"
OK not only possible, but extremely likely.
It's this anti government attitude that takes down groups like these. If they want to be a human rights organization, they did and can do a lot of good focusing on that. But when they focus on just one government, singling out the USA, this is not going to be very smart or very good for the members of Anonymous. While Libya or Egypt might not be able to do anything about Anonymous, the NSA, FBI, CIA, DEA and other three letter organizations have the resources and assets to wipe Anonymous out. I'm guessing the core members understand this and aren't interested in being tortured like Bradley Manning.
And it should be obvious to anyone why. Mr. Brown is focused on the sort of activities designed to elicit the maximum response by the most powerful military and government in the world. He is focusing on finding corruption in the US government, in the US military.
This is either a tactical error of epic proportions, or it's part of a deliberate design by his FBI handlers to turn him into the ultimate informant. I'm not accusing or saying with any degree of certainty that Mr. Brown is an informant. I'm saying that when people deliberately provoke the government, or talk about revolution in the USA, usually the loudest public speaker talking about it is the biggest informant.
I believe Anonymous cut him out of the picture because Anonymous does not trust him anymore. He isn't a hacker, he's a journalist. He came into Anonymous from the perspective of an observer/journalist. If he isn't participating in the ops and does not have a reputation as being an actor, it makes a lot of sense for them to push him out. The attention of the media usually brings the attention of the feds.
Barret Brown if he was every really in this group will find out soon that quitting isn't as easy as making a public declaration.
That is perhaps the main reason not to join this sort of group, when you join they own you and you cannot quit.
As far as Barret Brown being the public face, that was a stupid idea in the first place which smelled like a setup. The guy also released a crappy manual on opsec on pastebin. Couldn't he have made a PDF? A website? It didn't have much substance either.
Let's face it, a group like Anonymous was never supposed to have a Public Face. It's a vigilante group. If Mr. Brown has quit the group it's possible he quit because he's been turned informant for the FBI. It's also possible he quit because he's been discovered. It's also possible he quit because of a legitimate dispute. But we cannot just take his word on it.
We need to hear what Anonymous has to say about him.
The money can be given to you via a government jobs program. Build a bridge and then spend the money on games in the evening.
It has not been approved by OSI.
The NSA doesn't recruit people by telling them that they will be spying on Americans. I have met an NSA recruiter, and this is the story they tell you: As a cryptologist at the NSA, you will be working on interesting mathematics, mathematics you won't find in academia or in industry, and your work will help protect American lives. So say you are a 28 year old, you just finished a PhD in math or CS; wouldn't such a job be tempting?
The people who run the show at the NSA are not idiots. They know how to work with geniuses who might have a moral objection to spying on Americans. They know how to convince people that their work will only be used against foreigners, and how to get those people to put as much effort into their work as possible. If I had to venture a guess, I would say that most NSA mathematicians and computer scientists are aware of how their work is actually being used, except in rare cases where it is reported in the mass media (like the wiretapping scandal).
I agree with everything you are saying. I would think this would be common sense but I guess a lot of really smart people aren't all that street smart. The military recruiters do the same sorta thing, to get people to enlist.
I completely agree that customers who buy a lot of games and who are clearly of the higher income bracket should pay a bit more for games and entertainment. I would support this idea, as it would probably cut down on piracy. Most of us don't mind paying something, but if we are college students or struggling to find a job we simply cannot afford $50-60 a game.
I guess the people working at the NSA are the last to suspect that the NSA would spy on everybody in the world. But seriously what exactly did they think the NSA was building and doing this whole time?
The NSA, along with all the other agencies probably spy on as many people as they are technologically able. If they could watch us all for cheap enough they would. So what do technological advances mean? It means more people will be watched. It means more collection and more intelligence.
I'd say has a better track record than TrueCrypt only because GNUPG is open source and you can see the code.
Basically the encryption is just fine, just create a soldier, encrypt it, then sync it. It might be possible to set the folder to auto-encrypt on the client side and upload encrypted via sync.
Just encrypt your files before uploading them to dropbox. Use GNUPG, or a Truecrypt container.
It's only a matter of time before a website like whosarat.com moves in and takes advantage of this live court reporting idea.
Inquiring minds want to know who the snitches are.
The MPAA hasn't created a damn thing. Artists create, MPAA pimps artists on a massive scale.
They own the rights to the creations, but they don't create a damn thing.
The RIAA hasn't created a damn thing. Artists create, RIAA pimps artists on a massive scale.
They own the rights to the creations, but they don't create a damn thing.
The MPAA wants to control the entertainment sphere of the world. They don't want competition from newer more modern companies, so they use the law to guarantee no competition can exist. They don't want the "customer" to have control, they want it so they can maximize profits for themselves.
They just don't care about us the consumer. And they hate the competition. So they win by using the law because they can't win in the market place.
Because we know they need welfare to profit. They have to invent imaginary persons (corporations), and imaginary objects (intellectual property), both which defy the laws of physics in their favor but never in the favor of consumers.
Immoral corporations, they don't age, they don't die, but the powers that be expect us to accept them as persons.
Imaginary property, that is to be treated as physical objects when it's 1s and 0s, copying is equated with stealing, but the powers that be expect us to believe in it.
So in order for them to profit, we have to go schizophrenic and believe in imaginary shit which defies the laws of physics? The basis for their beliefs is unscientific at the foundation, and they don't care. They'll tell us that the earth is flat and make it true by court ruling, and then charge us to walk across the flat surface which they'll claim to own. But that doesn't change the fact that the earth is round, that they don't actually own it except on paper. They might hijack the government to protect their profits militarily, the government might believe that corporations are persons, the government might believe in their concept of intellectual property, and the government might invade privacy, abuse human rights and diminish civil rights to protect their profits, but it's all about the money right?
So get some money or suffer.
If you know what it is, for 10-15$ a month you can have a cen$or$hip free internet.
They can't fick with our networks.
and how can we have fun experimenting with this on our LANs? This would be perfect for pen testers to play with.
Does this mean government contractors will get access to the exploit code?
I guess this will help them wiretap.
Just by the design of it, it does not look large enough to be used for anything other than a precise surgical assassination mission.
Doesn't make a sound, can hover over a Window or get a nice line of sight, seems perfect for sniper type assassination missions to me.
I'd use a car analogy, but I've got a better one. Let's say you are a kid who walks to school every day, and every day you pass by a bully who demands you give him part of your lunch money. Every day he demands a dime. You fork it over. It's only a dime, and you've still got enough to buy your lunch. Then he starts demanding a dollar. Wait a minute, that's a lot of money and you won't be able to buy your own lunch if you pay him.
It's more that I'd be paying that bully to protect me from the other bullies who don't speak the same language and who are gang members.
So basically, I'll either be a bully myself or I'll be paying a bully. This means you either have your own government like the mafia in which you pay the Don, or you have a monarchy where you pay the prince, king or queen, or you have a government where you pay the President, the Congress and the contractors. Either way you pay the violent bullies of the world not to kill you, or enslave you. And only when they start killing and enslaving you do you have to fight. What you are saying is you'd be willing to have a revolution rather than pay higher taxes? Really? Good luck being on the cointelpro list.
You've got two options. You either pick a different way to school (move your factories and production overseas where taxes are lower),
Unless you aren't a rich business owner, in which case you can't pick a new school and you have to pay the bullies at the school you are at.
or start hiding your money so the bully thinks you don't have any and doesn't take what you clearly don't have (use the existing tax incentives and deductions to reduce AGI.)
But once again it doesn't work like that. Because the bully has so many informers/snitches telling him everything you do and where you hide your money. And on top of that you have to deal with the gangs, which aren't populated by bullies but by people like you who joined gangs to protect themselves form bullies. Since you aren't paying the bully anymore there is no one to protect you from these hooligan gangs who are just as likely to take your money as take your life.
Your existence diminishes my liberty, too. I want what you have. I am not free to take it from you. I want my LIBERTY!
This is why we have a government.
Health insurance companies are not what drive costs up. It seems obvious, doesn't it? If costs were lower, they'd have to pay out less to cover you and more of what they take in would be profit. No, what drives costs up is MALPRACTICE insurance.
Where is your proof? I don't really believe that at all. I think the cost of drugs and treatments are what keep costs high. Why should drugs cost so much?
The money the doctor pays so he won't be bankrupted by a simple mistake, or even by a procedure that went pefectly but didn't turn out the way the patient wanted.
What are you talking about?
And the costs of the unnecessary tests that he orders because he doesn't want to miss that one in a million chance that you don't have the same cold that everyone else is coming in with and get sued by your estate. That money gets tacked on the bill you pay, and then onto the health insurance company.
So the solution is to have more doctors?
You missed the point. Why should a violent computer game cost less than a non violent one? Who suddenly gets to be the morality police?
Would you rather games, porn and gambling be banned or would you rather just pay the tax and let them leave you alone?
It's okay, they can pay a tax on stuff they like too. Vice taxes affect everyone. Vice taxes are better than vice crimes.
Of course you can.
Just spend less money.
So when the cost of bread and water goes up, then you have to do what? Spend even less money? Find something else to cut from your budget? If you know the cost of bread and water will go up every 3 years for possibly the rest of your life, but you refuse to accept a promotion which would increase your revenue so that you'd have more to spend, then eventually your cost of bread, water, would cause you to lose most of what you currently own. This doesn't work, so this is why people take promotions, this is why corporations seek to boost profits. Why shouldn't individuals and governments seek to boost profits by increasing revenue? Profit for government is tax revenue, not cutting costs. Just like corporations that only cut costs, don't create jobs and end up outsourcing the jobs to cut costs, end up laying people off to cut costs, etc.
It's how I fixed my deficit, while my wages held steady. Canceled the cable, canceled the cellphone, turned off the heat, et cetera. Same principle applies at the national level - just cut spending on unnecessary bullshit (like wars, studying butterfly sex, renovating congressional offices, and so on).
It doesn't work that way. It's the unnecessary BS that creates the middle class and allows private sector corporations to have people to sell products to. So unless you plan to sell your products to the chinese, then you have to accept that all most profit and increase revenue for the economy to properly grow. This includes the government, it too must increase revenue as it is part of the economy, provides jobs, buys products from private corporations, etc.
Of course you can. You do it by spending less.
And then you raise taxes. Just spending less today doesn't mean the cost of healthcare wont rise as the population grows larger and sicker. So just cutting costs without raising taxes wont work. You have to cut costs and increase revenue.
Why should the government save grandma?
The government is a human rights corporation, as well as a defense corporation. The US Constitution shows this if you read it. Capitalism, corporate personhood, and corporate profits are not in the US Constitution. I'm not saying the government should literally save grandmas life, but defense of liberty is in the Constitution and corporations are an oppressive force. They diminish liberty, and this includes health insurance corporations.
Paying for education... well, first there's the racket of Universities always increasing their tuition by the amount the government allows students to borrow, but more importantly it's the only kind of loan you can't discharge in bankruptcy. Student lending is a veritable goldmine for the government, and if they didn't have laws protecting their goldmine you can bet your bottom dollar that private banks would take up the mantle. Higher education is so lucrative it's ridiculous.
I agree. So is debt. So the banks aren't any better encouraging people to buy houses they cannot afford.
Unemployment? Well, that's insurance more or less. You pay an unemployment tax, and then if you later become unemployed you can collect.
And this is why government should solve healthcare. It will cost in taxes, but the government would be the better institution and probably the only institution to handle it. Profiting from sickness is as bad as profiting from prison. It's not going to reduce costs, it increases costs.
Losing social security? Fine by me. Let the workers take the ridiculous amount of money they pour into that system every paycheck and let them invest it on their own. Shoot, even mandate that you must invest a certain percent of your income somewhere if you're worried about people not doing it. Education? Well, see above. If you're in the U.S., you pay out the nose for it. Healthcare.. not really sure how taxes are related to that.
That's because you don't plan to retire. You plan to commit seppuku when that time comes, right?
Libertarian? Noam Chomsky not David Koch.
If you don't know the difference then you are a corporatist posing as a libertarian. A real libertarian believes in human rights, a corporatist only believes in rights for corporations.
"Then it can be specialized, so that violent games or movies are taxed more for example."
Why? Since when should taxes be used to essentially create a form of censorship through price fixing?
It's not price fixing or censorship. It's stuff you don't need costing more than it did yesterday.
If you can't afford to get fat off ice cream and liquor, too bad. It's a recession.
It's better for you to lose weight than for someone to die because healthcare had to be cut.