Replies

Alright, good point. I'm not trying to legislate away TV commercials or even junk mail (which has always cost me much more time and energy than hanging up on a telemarketer). But, we do pay for the mailbox, and we pay for the TV. And, what about people knocking on your door to sell something? It's your door, your property, and you're paying for it. Should we start a "do-not-knock" list?

I just find it hypocritical that the same group who would rightly oppose other laws that intrude in the business of private companies would support a big-government program that does just that, all to stop a little inconvenience on their time.

Of course, I will admit, we're on the list, too. :-)

How does junkmail cost you any any time? You're going out to check the mail anyway, whether you have real mail, junk mail or no mail the trip from door to mailbox and back again is the same distance and time. The most it's costing you is a couple of second of sorting (which I generally do on the way back from the mail box), and if you have a fire place you're getting free kindling.

You pay for the mailbox, you do not pay to receive mail. If you never send a piece of mail in your life, thus never giving USPS any money, you will still be able to receive mail. Telephones aren't like that, you don't just pay for the phone, you pay for the actual service itself, if you never make a single phonecall you'll still need to pay your regional Bell to get phonecalls.

We already have a "do-no-knock" list, it's called a No Solicistors sign, if you have that posted somewhere easily visible you can have any violators charged with trespassing.

This isn't a law that intrudes on the business of private companies. All the DNC list did was centralize the process. For many years now telemarketers have had to give people a way to get off their list and could be heavily fined for continuing to call. The difference is that it was done company by company and the management of the list was left primarily up to them. Telemarketers abused the freedom they were given by making it incredibly difficult to get on the list (going so far as to instruct their employees to hangup on people that request to be on the list) and forced more drastic meassures to be taken. Had the telemarketers acted in good faith when they were given the opportunity to police themselves the DNC list never would have happened, instead they chose to abuse the system, I'm shedding no tears.

It's not an inconvenience on people's time. It's theft of service. This was already determined for cellphones where people directly pay for receiving phonecalls, it is more losely defined for landlines where people simply pay for the general service, but the basic principle holds. You pay for the service, if you don't want these people taking up your time and intruding on your ability to receive wanted phonecalls they should comply with your wishes.

We're so anti-goobermint here that we forget that there are legitimate functions of the government. The governement is to protect the citizenry against enemies foreign and domestic. Do tell me that telemarketers and all the other vermin knocking on our doors uninvited are not enemies of the citizens' domestic tranquility! Where do you suggest we turn to protect us against such predators?

It's gotten to the point where obnoxiousness is a Constitutional right, and many think that people have an absolute right to attempt to sell to other people. No, you don't! You don't have a right to block my way on the sidewalk with a stinking political petition, and you don't have a right to knock on my door to beg for a donation to some National Disease Society, you don't have a right to the space in my mailbox or to the ring of my phone.

I just find it hypocritical that the same group who would rightly oppose other laws that intrude in the business of private companies would support a big-government program that does just that, all to stop a little inconvenience on their time.

It's not a question of the government intruding into their business -- its a question of telemarketers intruding into my business. Look, it would be one thing if the government banned telemarketing or spam. That would be an intrusion into the private market, and I'd be on your side completely.

But that's not what the DNC does. All it says is that if a private citizen directs a third party to stop using his/her telephone or e-mail address, the third party must respect the property rights of that citizen. It's the electronic equivalent of a "No Trespassing" sign. I suspect you don't think its unlawful for the government to use its police power to protect the private property rights of a citizen who posts a "no trespassing" sign. So, why is it such an affront to the free market for the government to use its police powers to protect electronic personal property rights?

Of course, I will admit, we're on the list, too. :-)

Heh. Well, I don't agree with you on this, but you're obviously a good guy anyway.