Posted on 09/19/2002 10:23:31 AM PDT by steve-b
Edited on 04/13/2004 1:39:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
With all of the problems in the USA and the world, it would be nice to believe that the federal government is focusing its time and our money on the most pressing dangers to the well-being of the American people. But time and again, the government instead wastes valuable resources on trivial pursuits. This appears to be the case with the two federal agencies that have jumped in with plans to save Americans from an imminent threat: telemarketing.
(Excerpt) Read more at usatoday.com ...
Taking a few individual points:
With all of the problems in the USA and the world, it would be nice to believe that the federal government is focusing its time and our money on the most pressing dangers to the well-being of the American people.
If that were the criterion, the government should ban greasy fast food and permit bogus "medicines" for rare diseases -- the former does more aggregate harm. However, the actual criterion for legitimate government action is violation of rights: junk food doesn't violate them, but fraud does.
My phone is my property. That ought to end the debate as to whether I may post a public "NO TRESPASSING" sign on it, and expect the government to punish people who fail to obey the sign.
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Tim Muris says it is the federal government's duty to prevent Americans from ever being annoyed by those pesky telemarketers.
Again, the issue is violation of property rights, not "annoyance", Mr. Berlau's clintoning of the issue notwithstanding.
Some states have do-not-call lists, as does the Direct Marketing Association, a trade group. Although compliance with its list is voluntary, the association will kick out member firms who call individuals in the registry, and many firms recognize that it's a waste of time to call people who say they don't wish to be disturbed. There is also a thriving market for devices to screen calls from telemarketers and other annoying sources, according to privacy expert Solveig Singleton of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
The one shadow of a legitimate point Berlau might have is that federal jurisdiction should properly apply onto to interstate calls. Other than that, this argument is equivalent to suggesting that we should tolerate graffiti because some graffitists voluntarily limit themselves, and because paint removal devices are available at hardware stores.
Unlike many state do-not-call lists, the FTC rule contains no exceptions for firms that have an "established business relationship" with a particular consumer.
The reason for rejecting that exemption is that too many businesses have been caught grossly abusing it in those states where it exists (e.g. claiming that buying anything from one part of a corporate conglomerate establishes an "established business relationship" with all the rest).
AB
By this "logic", living in a house on a freely accessible street constitutes an invitation for anyone to spray paint graffiti on your wall.
I think some people are JUST have to have something to complain about and comedians something to grouse over....
NEXT it will be the biggest crybabies saying...
"see, I have this annoying neighbor who ALWAYS asks to borrow my garden shears/garden hose. THAT'S MY STUFF, SEE!!.....oh, please uncle sugar...can't you make him STOP asking meeeeeeee????WAH! WAH! WAAAH.....booohooooo WHAT TO DOOOO??????"
Computer spam is even worse, even with filtering.
I've been wondering about that; I'm against the government trying to protect us from ourselves and from non-threats. On the other hand, isn't it justifiable to ask the government to provide a service for us in this instance, since we are forced to pay taxes to them for phone use?
No, it doesn't. If I tell solicitors that their intrustions are not permitted -- and I only have to do it once for the whole world by posting a NO TRESPASSING sign, not once for each pest -- then they are, quite correctly, subject to arrest and prosecution if they do not heed the warning. The same principle applies to a global DO NOT CALL list.
This is the standard propaganda lie used by spammers. It is invalid because it is, in fact, extremely difficult to say "No" to EVERY SINGLE OBNOXIOUS PEST ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH ONE AT A TIME.
The law recognizes that I only have to act once to tell all solicitors that they are not permitted to ring my doorbell. There is no reason it should be any different for my phone bell.
I think that would be the equivalent of getting an unlisted number. Analogies are suspect, but comparing telemarketers to graffiti vandals is 'way over the top. I've been hit by graffiti vandals; I know the difference. They'll know the difference, too, if I ever catch the little freaks... I've never gotten telemarketers on my cell-phone or my office phone. Those numbers aren't published (that I'm aware of).
If the calls bother you...just get caller ID...I DID!!
We're not talking about spammers, we're talking about telephone salespests.
What's your home phone number?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.