Generally aren't prostitutes per se..

They usually get jobs as "exotic dancers" where all they have to do is display their wares rather than actually sell them.

Not that a lot of exotic dancers don't turn a trick or two on the side but mostly they make enough dancing where they can be choosy about what tricks they turn.

But your definition does absolutely no where in terms of gaging level of harm and level of deliberateness, nor does it make distinctions between various levels.

Without the concept of length a yardstick has no meaning or use.

What my definition of greed provides is a means of judging how greedy someone is by examining how much harm they inflict on others and how deliberately they do so.

In terms of a formula it would be: G=HD

Ohms law does you no good without two terms to plug into it, likewise it is with my formula for greed.

One final point, when you engage in a certain behavior toward others then you give tacit consent to have the same thing done to yourself. Think of it as a corollary to the Golden Rule.

As you would have others do unto you, do unto them.

Thus those approving of and performing torture give tacit consent to be tortured themselves.. Those who drive poison emitting cars give tacit consent to breathe the poison emitted by the cars of others.. And so on.

As you do unto others, so they may do unto you.

I've got three kids here fighting over who is going to play guitar hero next and it's quite distracting.. ;-)

Consider that you need access to the agents motivation to assess it; when X, being the only subject of X’s experience, claims that X was unaware of any harm, it gets rather murky. At any rate, even if ‘deliberateness’ came metered, there is still no mechanism in your definition to identify the point at which the greed becomes excessive. I may be off-base, but I assumed this was the entire point of the exercise.

Certainly in every case deliberateness cannot be accurately determined, but it sure can in some cases..

Ctheney is on record as stating in 1994 that the US invading Iraq would be a "quagmire", he actually used the q word.

That Ctheney threw the US into a quagmire deliberately is an open and shut case, he *knew* what the results of an invasion and occupation would be.. Therefore the deliberateness quotient for his action on a scale from 0 to 10 is a 10

.

There are lots of other cases where deliberateness can be judged with reasonable accuracy.. The Enron fiasco would be one, coyotes leaving trailers full of illegals in the desert to die would be another.

Human motivations are not as easily judged as the voltage and amperage of an electron flow but the law does indeed take motivations into account in determining a degree of innocence or guilt so there is definitely a precedent for doing such measuring.

Quite possibly the most destructive emotion there is..

Jealousy often leads to some truly horrendous behavior.. Some of the most violent and despicable crimes are committed in a state of jealousy fueled rage.

Think OJ Simpson.

That's the perfect definition of the taxation. Harm, coercion, and power.

True enough.

It's also the perfect definition of using military might to enforce one's will upon others.

And the perfect definition of the drug war.

Just wondering, are you a Ron Paul supporter? Paul seems to advocate doing away with the income tax, I would think that would appeal greatly to you.

However, I've got to tell you that whenever I hear the old, familiar, anti-two party, "they're-all-the-same" meme, from Americans, Australians, Britons, Canadians & many people who don't speak English, they're invariably closet-conservatives. Does that ring any bells?

I don't think the parties are *exactly* the same but I think they basically work for the same people. It's a good cop, bad cop routine.

Do you think I'm a "closet conservative"?

http://www.faireconomy.org/

http://www.responsiblewealth.org/

I have to ask, WTF does this have to do with me?

I've pretty well stayed out of the wealthy vs poor argument.

Nope, not Ron Paul. I also wouldn't do away with the income tax either. People just need to be reminded periodically that the meme "the rich don't pay taxes" is a myth. Especially when the rich pay MOST of them.

I thought as much, forced to choose between lower/no taxes and endless war abroad and on the American people you pick endless war.

Furthermore, when you add in *all* taxes, federal, state and local, the less wealthy pay a bigger share of the total than you claim.

Not to mention that the extremely wealthy have lots of ways of hiding income.. I'm not talking about the guy with a million or two but when you get up to half a billion or more the opportunities to hide your wealth and income are legion.

And a final point, once you get beyond a moderate level of financial complexity on a tax return no two IRS agents can come up with an identical figure anyway, the tax code is just too complex.

But instead of setting that money aside to pay for those things when they come due, we've spent that money and are kicking the obligation down the road to a time when, most likely, we will have a far larger retired/dependent population than the working population can sustain.

You are absolutely correct..

But you left out one part.. Who has been kicking the can the furthest and most often?

http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

Before you answer, look at this site.

Licking your eyebrows is more effective.