Replies

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.

Actually, Mr. Tired of Taxes put us on the list. I was the one dealing with the telemarketers all the time, and at one point I had the long distance telephone service switch down to a science. :-)

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?

I have no problem with the "No Trespassing" signs and the law supporting them. The problem with the DNC list is that the federal government has taken the responsibility for posting all of our "No Trespassing" signs for us.