"Do Not Call" Means Poorest May Lose Jobs

Cato Institute ^ | various | Various

[LowCountryJoe]

According to The Los Angeles Times, "Last summer, the federal government announced a national registry for consumers who want to block telemarketers from calling them. Americans rushed to sign up.

"Of the nation's 166 million residential numbers, 51 million are now off-limits to telemarketers. Despite ongoing court challenges, the list went into effect last month.

"The crackdown might be welcomed by consumers, but not by telemarketers like Millican, many of whom survive on the economic fringe. The nation has lost 2.6 million jobs in two years, and the 'do not call' list is expected to put hundreds of thousands more people out of work."

In "Like It Or Not, Free Speech Protects Telemarketers, Too", Cato's Robert Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies, argues that "when government sets the rules, it must not discriminate based on the content of the calls. That's what the First Amendment means. Free speech is not subject to plebiscite, no matter how many millions sign up for no-call. [Supreme Court] Justice William Brennan got it right: 'If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'"

[TC Rider]

yawn.

If so many of these pitiful souls hadn't preyed on the old, sick and poor, I might feel sorry for them.

As it is, somewhere a burger needs flippin'

[all4one]

"...you're putting door-to-door salesmen out of work"

My dog, however, needs a job, he will be happy to meet-n-greet any salesmen that drop by. Just a suggestion for the salesmen...wear depends. The dog is big and doesn't much like strangers on our property...and the owner likes strangers even less...and has a permit to carry.

[palmer]

Political fundraising is exempt from the do-not-call list, as are charities.

And bureaucrats will decide which are which. No thanks.

[LowCountryJoe]

bluejean wrote: "...making me get up, answer the phone..."

Making? Persuading, yes. Making?

[palmer]

I'll take that as a complement.

[Modernman]

And bureaucrats will decide which are which. No thanks.

They come pre-determined. Non-profit organizations have to meet certain qualifications to get tax benefits, so there's already a list of every qualified non-profit organization in the US. PAC's are the same (except for the tax break). So, the federal government won't have to do anything to determine who falls into these two categories except look at an already existing list.

[LowCountryJoe]

Yes it was well put. Nice observation, Jake. Have you heard from Robert Cohn or Lady Brett of late.

[palmer]

I've noticed a distinct lack of energy from the first few times we debated this. Either the proponents are pacified from not having to constantly argue with telemarketers or they have given up trying to justify their entitlement. I suspect the latter.

[Indy Pendance]

Is there a reason you have to answer your phone? Just because it rings doesn't mean you have to answer it. If I'm busy, I ignore my phone. I have an answering machine, and if whoever calls leaves a message, I will return it at my convenience. If I am expecting an important call, and I get a telemarketer call, I just hang up. No rule says I have to even talk to them.

The bottom line is, as conservatives, we should want less government intrusion into our lives. Reading this thread, and some of the comments that support bigger government is interesting. Having a list is just one more tool for the socialists to get their grubby hands on.

If the government were to tax each and every individual call, there would be no such thing as a do not call list.

[MineralMan]

"Is that so bad? I do not wish to dedicate the remainder of my nights home to being polite to telemarketers who have called my house as many as a dozen times a day. "

My solution is to simply never answer the telephone. All people with whom I wish to speak know that they must call once, let the phone ring 4 times, then call again immediately. Since there are redial buttons on all modern phones, it's not really a problem.

When asked for a telephone number on a form, I simply provide my fax number. The ringer is off on my fax machine, so I never know if someone's calling it.

I refuse to speak to telemarketers.

[Hemingway's Ghost]

I see you've attended a high school American literature class, at least.

[Let's Roll]

You would!

[GingisK]

"Is this something the federal government should be getting involved in?"

Since the telemarketers don't have sufficient scruples to respect my desire to be left alone, yes. If they would permit me to "opt out" without government intervention, then I would say you have a point. I pay the phone bill. Only I can dictate what purpose the phone serves.

I was right on the verge of disconnecting my telephone. That would make matters awkward, and perhaps dangerous, for my family. It was, neverless, an option I almost took.

I have the right to be left alone. They have no right to intrude upon the sanctity of my home to solicit sales, particularly when I have no interest in their products. Mass mailings are a better vehicle for this ... at least they can be discarded in mass at a time I choose.

Constitutional Rights are for individuals, not corporations. Real Conservatives are sticklers for individual rights, not corporate desires. Those corporations have access to TV, radio, magazine, newspaper, and mail advertising. They have absolutely no right to the use of my equipment.

[palmer]

Sounds quite tidy (except for the 40 foot stack of tax and corporate regulations). Back when I still had a land line phone I got calls from "charities" offering to help with my debt payments. But if that sounds disturbing to you, you can always lobby to have them excluded from calling your phone also.

[Catspaw]

When someone calls me to do a "survey," I first ask for a credit card, debit card or checking account number, telling them I'll be billing them at $100 an hour, pointing out that they're getting paid for their time and I expect to be paid for my time. When they attempt to launch into their spiel, I ask, "is that Master Card or Visa?"

They hang up fast.

[meyer]

If the same caller called after you told them not to call, you have a case for harassment. Other than that, you do not.

Which is precisely what the list does - it establishes that you don't want them to call. If they do so anyway, it is harassment.

[Modernman]

Sounds quite tidy (except for the 40 foot stack of tax and corporate regulations).

Sure, but your argument seemed to have been that the do-not-call list would give bureaucrats the power to determine who qualifies as a charity or a polital organization. I'm saying that's a totally separate determination that has nothing to do with the DNC list.

Back when I still had a land line phone I got calls from "charities" offering to help with my debt payments.

That might be a problem with the rules on non-profits, but it has nothing to do with the DNC list.

[meyer]

I pay for your entitlement. I prefer not to, but you and millions of other people lobbied to make me.

Do you pay for police and fire protection as well? That's an entitlement too, but I suspect that you aren't complaining about that. You just don't like the government helping people enforce tresspassing and harassment laws when it involves their phone lines and equipment rather than their other property.

Besides, given the penchant of telemarketers to do their deed, I suspect that the fines collected under this rule will more than pay the measley cost of keeping 'the list" up to date.

[palmer]

No, harassment is when someone harasses you, not when you think they might. That's why restraining orders (although abused) are not given out routinely. Overuse eventually makes them all trivial.

[palmer]

You just don't like the government helping people enforce tresspassing and harassment laws when it involves their phone lines and equipment rather than their other property.

That's correct. The marketplace does it already and could do it even better if the states allowed local service competition.