Which products aren't discrete? Which cannot be examined for quality? Which cannot be duplicated by competition? Which affect the overall well being of an economy?
If an example can't be offered, what am I supposed to do? Make one up for you?
The claim about a water monopoly is rubbish, unless you can find an instance where this happened that wasn't a direct result of the use of force (government or physical).
The Chicago School is only slightly better than the bare Keynesians.
Both schools are based on the deeply flawed idea that human action can be represented accurately in a mathematical model, along with a few other deeply flawed ideas.
You're claiming I have utilized a "widget fallacy" (please provide a link because your explanation is useless to me), but have not described a true flaw in the logic, you are simply mad at a placeholder for real world goods in the logic. Maybe you ought to give me an example of a "widget" (or "widgets") that would show the flaw in the logic.
Just because something is backed by law does not mean it is granted by law.
"Are public lawyers slaves? Are soldiers slaves? How about road contractors? In essence, I think your argument is fundamentally flawed."
These people may not be slaves but their income was forcibly removed from the hands of someone(taxpayers). In essence they are funded by second-hand slavery.
"Here is the most fundamental misunderstanding of economics..."
The things that you listed are only barely provided adequately by government, and each and every one of them has been provided by private institutions at some point in history. Most of them right here in the U.S.
As for the 18th century comment, consider reading some Hans Hermann Hoppe, or Murray Rothbard.
A strawman fallacy means that I oversimplified your argument. I didn't, I simply pointed out that you are practicing a fallacy, and by responding the way you did (pointing out "truer Scotsmen") you confirmed my point.
"Oh, I'm sure other economics professors would be interested..."
Classic appeal to authority.
"That would imply, dare I say it, that there should be some non-monetary inputs in a given society..."
Sorry, I haven't ran for office, or engaged in a strike (because my working conditions and wages are well within reason), I didn't mean to claim that I had.
1. ) Claiming competition isn't always feasible is a failure of imagination, nothing more. 2. ) Despite what people think monopolies only exist because the government is around to beat up their enemies. In the absence of government regulation monopolies are rare, and temporary, and of limited power. Business collusion is a rapidly deteriorating situation.
Imagine for a moment you can produce a widget at your company for $5 and your competitor can produce it for the same $5 as you, and you both currently collect $2 profit per widget, of course both of you being greedy, ignoble capitalists you collude to raise the price by $5 (to a total of $12). This will cause a decrease in demand, as people can afford fewer widgets now. Each of you will have excess capacity that could be used to produce widgets, one of you (or an upstart) will understand that if you lower the price back to the original price of $7, you will end up with a more profits than if you remained in collusion, simply by absorbing the demand of your competitor.
Bailing on contracts is a matter for courts, not regulations or regulators.
The bold parts of Chomsky's text actually highlights his misunderstanding of markets, and his near-religious belief in popular opinion.
"The best description of what I "agitate" for would be a well-regulated capitalist society that produced wealth in humane and environmentally sound ways, did not intervene in the sovereign affairs of other nations"
Sounds both desirable and agreeable.
"and made the universal health care, food, shelter, and access to information fundamental human rights"
I sense a deep misunderstanding of the nature of human rights in this sentence, but in a purely grammatical sense I agree with you. Access to these goods and services is a human right, in the same way that access to any other market is, through trade.
You see I don't have the right to defend myself, or to speak freely because the Constitution says so, I have thees rights because I am a living, thinking human being. You should re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if you look carefully those documents do not grant us rights, they simply acknowledge them. Healthcare, food, and shelter are not human rights, they are products/services. Someone has to build them, someone has to do the labor. If you are claiming they are a right, in essence you are claiming that it is your right to hold the doctor, the homebuilder and the grocer as your slaves.
Information, however, is a different subject. Information itself is not a scarce resource (If I know something, it doesn't exclude you from knowing that same thing), yet just because information is not scarce does not mean that you have a right to every bit of information ever thought up, ever discovered, ever created. If information has been given to you, you have every natural right to, in turn, give it away. But if it hasn't been given to you, you have no right to pry it out of another private individuals mind, or off of their property.
I suppose you could mean that everyone ought to have a right to computers/internet access. If you mean that computers and internet access ought to be free, again you are saying that computer manufacturers and telecom companies ought to be slaves.
"Or you could vote, run for office, strike, protest... there are quite a few options. America is a bad example because we don't have a functioning democracy. The same entities pretty much run the government and the media, so it's game over until the system completely collapses and we start over."
I think you misunderstood by my original statement. You see, you can't cure someone who is sick of democracy by giving them more of it. It so happens that I do all of the things listed, yet I only do them in a defensive manner. When someone wants to take the wealth I've earned, I vote for someone else (preferably one who will undue past harmful legislation), when someone wants to "grant" new rights, I vote for someone who understands what rights
This is in response to your signature, so OT mod here I come.
The form of democracy that Chomsky agitates for is a thousand times more oppressive to an individual than any one Corporation has every been. You can always quit, you can always start your own corporation and run it differently, you can always purchase goods/services from another corporation, or even none at all. When you're sick of your democracy your only options are violence and moving to a foreign land.
I've actually read this, it's a not-so-subtle peice of corporate propaganda. It causes the reader self doubt; and sometimes convinces the reader that THEY should change for the better of the corporation.
If this peice of shit were given to me by my boss I would quit in no quiet, or kind way.
Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.
It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day.
The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate?
There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt.
Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend.
Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations.
In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
IIRC fiber optics networks still have to use electronic switches, hubs, routers, etc, that means that the data has to be converted from photonic to electronic and back at every switch/router/anything that actually processes it. This causes a huge slow down in comparison to what a pure light switch/router/etc. could perform.
Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.
It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day.
The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate?
There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt.
Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend.
Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations.
In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
Censorship
By Luke Green
Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.
It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day.
The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate?
There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt.
Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend.
Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations.
In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Benjamin Franklin
Why, even in a time of war, would the citizens of their own country be under surveilance?
Slashdot Mirror
Well he can kiss my hairy glass.
Okay for now let me try this:
Which products aren't discrete? Which cannot be examined for quality? Which cannot be duplicated by competition? Which affect the overall well being of an economy?
If an example can't be offered, what am I supposed to do? Make one up for you?
The claim about a water monopoly is rubbish, unless you can find an instance where this happened that wasn't a direct result of the use of force (government or physical).
http://mises.org/
The Chicago School is only slightly better than the bare Keynesians.
Both schools are based on the deeply flawed idea that human action can be represented accurately in a mathematical model, along with a few other deeply flawed ideas.
You're claiming I have utilized a "widget fallacy" (please provide a link because your explanation is useless to me), but have not described a true flaw in the logic, you are simply mad at a placeholder for real world goods in the logic. Maybe you ought to give me an example of a "widget" (or "widgets") that would show the flaw in the logic.
Just because something is backed by law does not mean it is granted by law.
"Are public lawyers slaves? Are soldiers slaves? How about road contractors? In essence, I think your argument is fundamentally flawed."
These people may not be slaves but their income was forcibly removed from the hands of someone(taxpayers). In essence they are funded by second-hand slavery.
"Here is the most fundamental misunderstanding of economics..."
The things that you listed are only barely provided adequately by government, and each and every one of them has been provided by private institutions at some point in history. Most of them right here in the U.S.
As for the 18th century comment, consider reading some Hans Hermann Hoppe, or Murray Rothbard.
A strawman fallacy means that I oversimplified your argument. I didn't, I simply pointed out that you are practicing a fallacy, and by responding the way you did (pointing out "truer Scotsmen") you confirmed my point.
"Oh, I'm sure other economics professors would be interested..."
Classic appeal to authority.
"That would imply, dare I say it, that there should be some non-monetary inputs in a given society..."
I never said otherwise.
Don't go all Facebook on us though, if there is a like button, we also need a dislike button.
Sorry, I haven't ran for office, or engaged in a strike (because my working conditions and wages are well within reason), I didn't mean to claim that I had.
1. ) Claiming competition isn't always feasible is a failure of imagination, nothing more.
2. ) Despite what people think monopolies only exist because the government is around to beat up their enemies. In the absence of government regulation monopolies are rare, and temporary, and of limited power. Business collusion is a rapidly deteriorating situation.
Imagine for a moment you can produce a widget at your company for $5 and your competitor can produce it for the same $5 as you, and you both currently collect $2 profit per widget, of course both of you being greedy, ignoble capitalists you collude to raise the price by $5 (to a total of $12). This will cause a decrease in demand, as people can afford fewer widgets now. Each of you will have excess capacity that could be used to produce widgets, one of you (or an upstart) will understand that if you lower the price back to the original price of $7, you will end up with a more profits than if you remained in collusion, simply by absorbing the demand of your competitor.
Bailing on contracts is a matter for courts, not regulations or regulators.
The bold parts of Chomsky's text actually highlights his misunderstanding of markets, and his near-religious belief in popular opinion.
"The best description of what I "agitate" for would be a well-regulated capitalist society that produced wealth in humane and environmentally sound ways, did not intervene in the sovereign affairs of other nations"
Sounds both desirable and agreeable.
"and made the universal health care, food, shelter, and access to information fundamental human rights"
I sense a deep misunderstanding of the nature of human rights in this sentence, but in a purely grammatical sense I agree with you. Access to these goods and services is a human right, in the same way that access to any other market is, through trade.
You see I don't have the right to defend myself, or to speak freely because the Constitution says so, I have thees rights because I am a living, thinking human being. You should re-read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, if you look carefully those documents do not grant us rights, they simply acknowledge them. Healthcare, food, and shelter are not human rights, they are products/services. Someone has to build them, someone has to do the labor. If you are claiming they are a right, in essence you are claiming that it is your right to hold the doctor, the homebuilder and the grocer as your slaves.
Information, however, is a different subject. Information itself is not a scarce resource (If I know something, it doesn't exclude you from knowing that same thing), yet just because information is not scarce does not mean that you have a right to every bit of information ever thought up, ever discovered, ever created. If information has been given to you, you have every natural right to, in turn, give it away. But if it hasn't been given to you, you have no right to pry it out of another private individuals mind, or off of their property.
I suppose you could mean that everyone ought to have a right to computers/internet access. If you mean that computers and internet access ought to be free, again you are saying that computer manufacturers and telecom companies ought to be slaves.
"Or you could vote, run for office, strike, protest... there are quite a few options. America is a bad example because we don't have a functioning democracy. The same entities pretty much run the government and the media, so it's game over until the system completely collapses and we start over."
I think you misunderstood by my original statement. You see, you can't cure someone who is sick of democracy by giving them more of it. It so happens that I do all of the things listed, yet I only do them in a defensive manner. When someone wants to take the wealth I've earned, I vote for someone else (preferably one who will undue past harmful legislation), when someone wants to "grant" new rights, I vote for someone who understands what rights
This is in response to your signature, so OT mod here I come. The form of democracy that Chomsky agitates for is a thousand times more oppressive to an individual than any one Corporation has every been. You can always quit, you can always start your own corporation and run it differently, you can always purchase goods/services from another corporation, or even none at all. When you're sick of your democracy your only options are violence and moving to a foreign land.
Fortunately in the USA we are generally innocent until proven guilty.
Your name sounds familiar are you from Oregon?
there is a huge wedge between theory and practice in this particular case
I've actually read this, it's a not-so-subtle peice of corporate propaganda. It causes the reader self doubt; and sometimes convinces the reader that THEY should change for the better of the corporation. If this peice of shit were given to me by my boss I would quit in no quiet, or kind way.
Censorship
By Luke Green
Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.
It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day.
The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate?
There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt.
Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend.
Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations.
In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
A girl band singing about physics?! It's a nerd's dream come true.
So you are telling us you had a nerdgasm?
Sadly, because it is.
Fiber optics:
IIRC fiber optics networks still have to use electronic switches, hubs, routers, etc, that means that the data has to be converted from photonic to electronic and back at every switch/router/anything that actually processes it. This causes a huge slow down in comparison to what a pure light switch/router/etc. could perform.
I think it was Jimmy Stewart that said:
"Every time a server burns, a torrent gets its wings."
I could be wrong.
Censorship
By Luke Green
Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.
It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day.
The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate?
There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt.
Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend.
Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations.
In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
Censorship By Luke Green Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show. It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day. The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate? There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt. Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend. Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations. In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
Once I speak a word, and intend for it to be heard, I cannot charge a fee for those who hear it. It is NOT property.
Uh oh... here come the FEDs!
Especially since laser painting is usually a reference to "painting" a target with an infra-red beam, so that it may be accurately bombed.
I seriously doubt the man had the intention of taking down an aircraft with his daughter.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Benjamin Franklin Why, even in a time of war, would the citizens of their own country be under surveilance?