Ranting to /dev/null

i dont know that that article is completely correct. for one, surely not everyone will sign up for this list, meaning that sales calls can continue to provide sales and employment. further, those who sign up will probably be those who hang up immediately anyway, leaving many or most or all of those who actually do listen to sales calls off of the list, meaning that much of the sales/employment is not affected. i realize that my argument is primarily based on probability as well as my own perspective of the telemarketing industry which, admittedly i dont have a firm grasp of either, so accordingly i realize this may be a weak argument and i expect to be ripped to shreds.
and rye-dawg, honestly, why dont you have my blog linked on your blog? im curious to know the reason.

Well geez, in my opinion, the numbers are irrelevant. Nobody HAS to answer the phone when somebody calls. Nobody HAS to let their phone ring in their house so loudly that they feel like they have to answer it. Nobody HAS to go without caller id. All you have to do, if you don't like telemarketing calls, is to be like me and only answer the phone if you know who it is. If you don't know who it is, let them leave a voicemail message. This is not complicated.

And yet the incessant whiners want the people with the GUNS to force certain people not to call other people. Why must we always resort to the people with the GUNS to settle our petty annoyances? This is absolutely ridiculous. The very fact that ANY percentage of people respond favorably to telemarketing calls shows the utter injustice of any such regulation.

It's sheer nonsense. If you don't want to talk to a telemarketer, DON'T ANSWER THE FREAKING PHONE!

Regardless, the threat of violence (which is what every FCC regulation is) is NOT the solution.

And anyway, even if numbers DID matter, the economic math is not complicated. Telemarketers wouldn't exist if it weren't profitable. And if it's profitable, it's because a good number of people appreciate the knowledge of goods and services that it brings to them. They buy stuff. Marketing, in principle, is good.

Another rant: Never in the history of the world has a people been as wealthy as us, and yet we speak of needing an "economic recovery"? This is pathetic.

Actually, DP, 60 million people have already signed up. There are, at least count, 270 million people in the country. Doesn't look that bad, right? But when you realize that there's only one person per household who has a phone line, and the average household size is between two and three people, that means that there are only between 100 and 150 million people. So anywhere from 40 to 60% of America has signed up. If 40 to 60% of any market suddenly disappeared, it would be bad for any industry.

And nick, your fervor is always appreciated :).

*sigh*

just cosider Nick, the the reason you purchase the phone is to communicate with your friends and family. Intentionality is a concept long defended is American jurisprudence, so don't even argue that it's irrelevant to the usage of a phone...

So you get this phone and part n' parcel with it is this loud ringer that lets you know when one of your friends is calling, who you want to talk to, because that's why you got the dang thing to begin with...

now consider that folks who you don't want to talk to start calling, often. You walk over, pick up the phone, and you didn't want to talk to that person. This become commonplace.

Now, you get caller-id, so you can tell when its a telemarker (most of the time) so that saves you the hassle of answering the phone. But unfortunately you've still got 60 seconds of loud ring time to wait through including the walk over to the caller-id box (or the one on the phone) just to realize that its not your friends on the phone wanting to talk to you.

And by this point, you're completely away from the original intention of the phone, sucked into all these ways of just trying to keep your phone limited to the original purpose you got it for.

And geez Nick, didn't your parents teach you that just because you CAN do something (like doing telemarketing) it doesn't mean you SHOULD do something?

The problem is that the intention of a phone, by its very design, is to allow *anybody* who has the number to call it. If you buy something that allows anybody to call indiscriminately, then surprise, surprise, anybody can call indiscriminately. The solution is not to ask the people with the guns to regulate the hell out of everything. Rather, the solution is to freely modify our technology to NOT allow just anybody to call indiscriminately.

How can resorting to threatened violence possibly be the solution to such a simple technological issue? The same goes for spam, BTW. The solution is to freely develop better technology, not to threaten violence.

And Josiah, there are of course plenty of things that can be done that shouldn't be done. But it doesn't follow that people should be threatening violence to keep people from doing every such thing.

Wouldn't it be cool if the FCC actually DID threaten violence? If every once in a while large men with sticks ran into telemarketing offices and whomped everybody good and hard? Man, that would make a great reality TV show.

"Who you gonna call? PHONEBUSTERS!!"

Nick, the ad baculum argument isn't a fallacy unless you're kidding.

But the FCC DOES threaten violence. Didn't somebody say something about fines? Try not paying the fine. See what happens. Every enforced government regulation is a threat of violence.

Nick,

It is one thing to argue against the 'incessant whiners' who want to call in the people with the guns. While I disagree with you on this point, further evidence may convince me to change my position. It is quite a different thing, as the direction of your comments seems to indicate, to argue against the government's right to threaten violence. That's what they're designed to do: get violent on everyone who doesn't follow laws and regulations. Once a regulation is in effect, the threat of violence is a matter of course. You should be making the case that the particular regulation itself is unjust; an argument that would be quite unrelated to the question of whether or not the civilians wanting such a regulation are 'whiners.'

You think of fines as threatened violence; I think of fines as fines. You are probably right. I am probably happier. Life is a series of tradeoffs.

Keven, I'm actually agreeing with you more fullly than you are. Because what you say is true (the purpose of the government is to threaten violence), I see laws and regulations as synonymous with threatened violence.

So, I'm saying the government shouldn't make rules about this issue, which is the same thing as arguing the government shouldn't threaten violence over this issue.

Nick,

I would prefer to say that laws and regulations entail threatened violence. "Synonymous" implies a two-way relationship: it is possible to threaten violence without the authority to make laws or regulations. Without the reverse being true, by saying the first thing, you are, essentially, saying the second. Contrary to your final assertion, however, it is not the case that saying the first implies arguing the second. You need to give reasons. Since goverments were ordained to make laws and regulations with their entailed threats of violence, it follows that the government may make such laws and regulations. By default, this is its prerogative. It doesn't even have to demonstrate that it should make such laws or regulations. The burden of proof is on you to show that it should not make rules about this particular issue. As I see it, your only option is an appeal to a higher authority. You must either show that, scripturally, governments do not have the authority to fine telemarketers (and good luck getting the government to listen should you actually discover this hidden proof-text); or, more practically, you need to argue the issue along constitutional grounds. If you are unable to make your case, two other arguments related to this issue are possible: 1) Argue that a society should not want such regulations (which you had started to do); and, 2) argue that the particular violence being threatened is not commensurate to the crime.

Wait, so why is it wrong to make a list where people voluntarily signup to make it the legal intention that their phone only be used for people they want to talk to?

Well gee, I never intended to get that dogmatic. I'm just trying to argue that sheer common sense says that we shouldn't want people threatening violence over every little thing. That's all.

I think it's a vice of our generation that we want the people with the guns to solve every last one of our little problems. Constitutionally (there, is that dogmatic enough, Kevin?), the people with the big guns should stand at our borders and shoot invaders.

The people with the smaller guns should be shooting murderers and rapists and be forcing thieves to make double restitution and be forcing businesses to keep contracts that they sign.

The people with the really small guns should be making sure gauges at gas pumps are accurate, and other such things.

But geez, if I buy a piece of technology that allows anybody to call me, and I don't want just anybody to call me, it's my responsibility to use technology to solve the problem. The people with the big guns should stay at the borders and shoot invaders.

Josiah, the short answer is that nobody has the obligation not to dial a certain number on their own phones. If I have a phone, I can dial whatever I want. If your phone lets me in, that's your fault, not mine.

You're welcome to block me, turn off your ringer, or whatever. But you don't have the authority to tell me what numbers I can push on my phone.

Actually, Nick, sheer common sense cannot be argued; it is a premise, not a conclusion. Still, you do have an argument here, although unstated. I will stipulate to your major premise (the one derived from common sense) and then state the minor and the conclusion.

-We shouldn't want people threatening violence over every little thing.
-A call from a telemarketer is a little thing.
-Therefore, we should not want people to threaten violence over a call from a telemarketer.

The argument is valid, but the minor premise is under dispute. Is it the case that a call from a telemarketer constitutes a little thing? I would argue that it does not. You suggest that technology should solve the problem. What about those who cannot afford the technology? You also say that, for those who purchase a piece of technology that allows anyone to call them, the burden is on them if they don't want this to happen. But this is only a valid point if the technology is a luxury item. There are a number of people for whom the phone is a necessity. So, while I agree with your assessment of this particular vice of our generation, I disagree that the desire for freedom from telemarketers is a legitimate example of that vice.

I was, perhaps, a bit vague when I said to argue on constitutional grounds. I meant that, given the premise that a government, generally defined, has the right to make whatever law it wants, you would need to find something in the Constitution that would prohibit this government from making this specific law. You list different thngs that the people of varying gun sizes should be doing, but this says nothing about what else they may do. Why can't we put the do-not-call program under the category of "other such things" for those people with really small guns? You might argue that the Constitution prohibits the government from making any other kind of law than those that fit into the categories that it lists. Technically, this would fit under the Federal government's 'regulation of commerce among the states' clause. However, since such regulation would only be a practical effect and not the real intent of the law, perhaps the Federal government doesn't have the right to make this telemarketing law. Even so, state governments do not have the same restrictions. And, from this, there appears to be a case in which unforeseen technological advances (such as the ability to instantly pester someone across state lines) would allow the states to turn certain legislative privileges back over to the Federal government. A state do-not-call law, after all, would be somewhat impotent.

I conclude then that there are people with a legitimate claim to this law and that the goverment has every right to make and enforce this law.

What you've forgotten, Kevin, is that the Do-Not-Call registry isn't technically a law as such. It's merely a Federal regulation. No legislation has occurred here. This was done autonomously by the executive branch, specifically the FCC.

You are, of course, right on this point, Ryan. But this only requires that another more foundational question be answered: whether the FCC should exist as regulation making entity? If so, then the technical difference is irrelevant. If not, then this is not a question of whether such a law/regulation may finally be made, but of which branch of government may properly create it.