"Message to Congress: Don't do us any favors," said Steve Dasbach, the party's national director.
"Yes, a law that permanently disconnects dinnertime telemarketers may make some Americans cheer. But Libertarians realize that not every minor irritant requires a new federal law -- and realize that legislation-happy politicians are more of an annoyance than pesky telemarketers will ever be."
The bill, HR 232, was filed by Rep. Peter King (R-NY). It would ban all telemarketing between 5:00 and 7:00 pm, and would require telemarketers to inform people at the beginning of any call that they can be placed on a "Do Not Call" list.
While the bill may strike a responsive chord among Americans who hate the sound of a ringing telephone during dinner, said Dasbach, HR 232 should be rejected because:
* It isn't necessary.
"Advances in technology have given Americans new weapons to fight irritating telemarketers," said Dasbach. "Answering machines allow you to screen your calls. Caller ID allows you to see who is calling. Call blocking allows you to permanently reject certain kinds of calls.
"And if those techniques fail, a polite 'no thank you' and a quick hang-up are all that's needed to send unwanted telemarketers packing. You don't need a new federal law -- or a new category of federal crime -- to beat telemarketers."
* It unfairly restricts free enterprise.
Bill banning dinnertime telemarketing may be popular, but it's not needed
Oh BTW, I know with the above post, I have "technically" contradicted myself, with my previous remarks that Libertarians only care about drug legalization, but life is not based on technicalties, kinda of like the life that Barbara Boxer leads when she votes against a partial birth abortion ban, because to her all abortion has to be kept legal. Not that much different than the Libertarian view on drugs, IMO.
Kinda like how you call pro-drug FReepers "Libertarians" even though "technically" they are not.
The above should read(to clear up any misunderstandings that Libertarians may have).
Oh BTW, I know with the above post, I have "technically" contradicted myself, with my previous remarks that Libertarians only care about drug legalization, but life is not based on technicalties, not like the life that Barbara Boxer leads when she votes against a partial birth abortion ban, because to her all abortion has to be kept legal. Not that much different than the Libertarian view on drugs, IMO.