Replies

"Then a "No Solicitors" sign on a door inhibits commerce."

Not only that -- If you don't purchase what they're selling you can be arrested for interfering with commerce. By not purchasing, you're blocking "trade". You anti-capitalist, you.

Forget the DEA, we need the CEA (Commerce Enforcement Agency).

Their motto? "Buy or Die"

WASHINGTON, DC -- A new bill filed in Congress that would make it illegal for telemarketers to call you during dinnertime should be rejected because it is unnecessary, unfairly restricts free enterprise and, worst of all, treats Americans like children, the Libertarian Party said today.
"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.

You got a point in that diatribe somewhere?
Is this just an attempt to call me an anti-capitalist or is the common sense in it all just too much for you to comprehend?

Look Dane, I used "diatribe"! Too subtle for ya?