"Do Not Call" Means Poorest May Lose Jobs

Cato Institute ^ | various | Various

[Petronski]

But who is the user who pays the tax? The consumer getting the call? The bastard telemarketer making the unsolicited call? The small businessman returning a client's call?

[Indy Pendance]

I guess, my point was, if the government charged a tax per call, the telemarketers who called your home, or cell, or work, would be charged a per charge call, and likewise, regular households and businesses would be charged per their calls. If, the government opted to charge a per phone call tax, they'd never would have agreed to a do not call list, it would reduce their revenue. And I would be against that.

[Held_to_Ransom]

The lines in my house are MINE. I own them. Unless I pay the phone company insurance each month (a few bucks)...I have to pay for them to fix it if it goes bad (or I do it myself). It is my phone line in my house...so people I want to stay off of it should...and that is what my representative heard (and most of them!). You of course are biased to your opinion because this is your business. Understandable. Stinks to be you. However, your freedom of speech stops at my property line...and those phone lines in my house are MY PROPERTY...as is the PHONE. So...please stay off of my property and stop wasting my time. The do not call list is a way of telling you to stay of my property (remember...I OWN IT!)...just like a sign hung on the fence.

But the phone lines to your house are on your property and they are not yours. They are the property of a private though well regulated company, and you can't make a phone call without passing over the system which telemarketing makes a major contribution to supporting. They support you calling, but you would deprive them of supporting themselves. If you phone network was private, you could limit it's use, but you can't. You are, however. free to disconnect your phone and not let anyone call you on it. You are also free to set up a private phone network so that you can make your calls without financially bleeding off of others, but you won't, because you it wouldn't be affordable.

Marie Antoinette said 'let them cake.' You are saying 'let them eat cake, but give me the bread off their tables first.'

[weaponeer]

Then don't sign up for phone service, it's not an entitlement.

Of course it's not an entitlement. WE PAY FOR IT! Jeeezzzz! Think a little bit before you post.

[Petronski]

You've already allowed an exception to the Constitution by allowing them to restrict commerce...

No, they're not restricting commerce. In this case, there is no commerce, nor would/could there be any commerce. Why can't you understand? I don't want the Goddamned call, and I'm certainly not buying anything from a paid, serial harasser.

[palmer]

Of course it's not an entitlement. WE PAY FOR IT!

You paid for a service that allows anyone to call you. Demanding a more restrictive service from the government is asking for an entitlement.

[palmer]

In this case, there is no commerce, nor would/could there be any commerce. Why can't you understand? I don't want the Goddamned call, and I'm certainly not buying anything from a paid, serial harasser.

If the interstate commerce clause doesn't apply, then you need to provide a Constitutional justification for Federal intervention.

[Petronski]

If, the government opted to charge a per phone call tax, they'd never would have agreed to a do not call list, it would reduce their revenue...

Got it. You don't want the fee to reduce calls, you want the fee so Uncle Sugar won't restrict the calls for fear of lost revenue.

That's no different than a bribe to Uncle Sugar to prevent the public will (the FDNC list) from becoming law.

One more time...just who here is supposed to be in favor of greater government involvement?

[Indy Pendance]

I don't want it, I suggested it was proposed, and if that proposal was accepted, the government would not have accepted the idea of a no call list. It was just a theory.

[palmer]

Thanks statists for sharing all your invectives and rationalizations of unconstitutional expansion of federal government. I will sleep on them.

[Petronski]

If the interstate commerce clause doesn't apply, then you need to provide a Constitutional justification for Federal intervention.

I did not say the commerce clause did not apply, I'm saying that the wooden-headed bastards in telemarketing don't understand that people who say they don't want to be called actually mean THEY DON'T WANT TO BE CALLED.

Y'all are attempting to engage in interstate commerce, and are subject to Federal regulation, no matter how unlikely/impossible actually engaging in interstate commerce during a crank call might be.

My problem is why you can't understand that if 50 million people say 'Don't bother calling, I will not buy,' you still insist on the 'right' to make the call.

[Petronski]

Thanks statists...

Oh, a Libertarian. No wonder you're so incorrigibly annoying.

[Revolting cat!]

I will sleep on them.

Sleep well on your government regulated mattress, dreamer!

[rock58seg]

They used sequential dialers. They automaticaly dial next number higher, that way all numbers were dialed whether listed or not.

[RWG]

I think these are valid arguments, don't you?

No.

A hitchhiker is not entitled to force you to pick him up. Just because someone wants to talk to you doesn't mean that you have to listen. By using the phone to contact you, you have been forced to listen when you didn't want to.

[RWG]

I think these are valid arguments, don't you?

No.

A hitchhiker is not entitled to force you to pick him up. Just because someone wants to talk to you doesn't mean that you have to listen. By using the phone to contact you, you have been forced to listen when you didn't want to.

[FITZ]

You aren't forced --- you can get an answering machine to screen your calls, you can get caller ID and answer only the ones you want to answer --- you don't have to answer the "unavailables", or you can answer and hang up if it's not the call you wanted. I don't talk to telemarketers and I didn't need the government.

[xm177e2]

I just worry that this will lead to even more protections provided by our government.

I agree completely with this (that's why I said in my post that this would be "fascism"). Just because (a bureaucrat decides) an industry is lame and pathetic doesn't mean it should be illegal.

[RWG]

You aren't forced --- you can ...

Go up to someones's house at 4 am and knock on the door. When you are arrested tell the police that the occupant didn't have to answer the door, that he could have hired security, or that he could just have ignored the whole thing and no you are not needed here you pawns of the government.

[Oztrich Boy]

Earlier I posted that I wasn't a telemarketer;

Statement doesn't mean anything, as a telemarketer would lie.