The National ‘Do Not Call’ Registry was dealt a serious blow by a federal judge today, who ruled in favor of the Direct Marketing Association in blocking the DNC Registry from being implemented. The judge found constitutional questions in the…

In response to my Tech Central Station piece from last week, Radley Balko has his own piece arguing that I’m all wet. I’ll take this opportunity to respond. Radley first objects to the enactment of the legislation creating the “do…

Henry Farrell at Crooked Timber has a lengthy response to Tyler Cowan’s (Volokh Conspiracy) libertarian counter-argument against the federal do-not-call list; Will Baude (Crescat Sententia)…

I really can’t understand why the telemarketers are so against this anyway. I would think it would be to their advantage to know who doesn’t want to receive their calls so they would know not to waste their time on those people.

In addition to Brian’s entry below about the inherent problems associated with a centralized ’solution’ to unwanted telemarketing calls, there has been some thoughtful writing on the Constitutional legality of the Registry, specifically dealing with th…

In addition to Brian’s entry below about the inherent problems associated with a centralized ’solution’ to unwanted telemarketing calls, there has been some thoughtful writing on the Constitutional legality of the Registry, specifically dealing with th…

One difference between telemarketing and junk e-mail is that e-mail is processed and carried almost entirely outside the realm of government regulation and restriction in a highly competitive market with multiple service providers available to any given customer. Already ISPs are advertising SPAM screening/blocking services as incentives to potential customers.

Contrast that with heavily regulated telephone service providers who, with complete government approval (if not complicity), sell auto dialing services and caller ID blocking to telemarketing companies and then turn around and sell call screening gimmicks to those who don’t want to receive those telemarketing calls. Their justification is that they cannot impose restrictions without violating First Amendment rights.

So are libertarians really behaving under a double standard by supporting the do-not-call list? Maybe they are under these circumstances, but if you were to ask whether they would prefer the present system with the do-not-call list over a system completely free of government control, I think they would choose the latter. What’s more, the internet is living proof that current technology obsoletes the argument for the government to control telephone service through monopoly grants and “public service” commissions as they once thought necessary.

And this is hardly the only case where government control results in the need for further government control to fix the resulting problems. Public utility regulations are founded on that very principle.

An advantage of a federalist system is that states can experiment with these types of issues, including doing nothing, similar to how market competition and choice operates for private sector goods.

Here’s a tip, too busy to answer the phone? don’t. Don’t like who is on the other end of the call when you do pick up? hang up.

Works for me everytime.

I love the people who hate the calls so much and are worried about losing minutes on their cell phone or hassling with the guy on the line. The first thing I do when someone starts their pitch is to tell them that I’m not interested and to not call back. I then hang up. Usually about one of these calls get through a week, and it takes me

Similarly for telemarketers. The libertarian way to respond to harassing phone sales pitches is to document them, get together other people who’ve been harassed, and bring a class-action suit against the companies that make the harassing pitches. If enough people do this, it will deter abusive telemarketing. This approach is slow and unwieldy and uncertain in its effectiveness, true– but it’s the Right Thing To Do ™, and doesn’t have the unintended consequences of the quick-fix federal solution.

Let’s further assume that a patchwork of state and local regulations proves unworkable because Mississippi decides to be “The Telemarketer State”. As call costs fall, it’s not hard to imagine a world where cell phones and faxes are radically less useful technologies because of junk sellers. Would there be a legitimate role for the feds at that point to help “regulate” commerce, in the libertarian sense of “making regular”?

Back in the dark ages when I owned a land-line phone and I received a telemarketing call, I would either not answer or would tell them to put me on their “no call” list. If they continue to call despite having been notified that I do not wish to receive a call, then this behavior constitutes harrassment, for which there is already a means of redress.

Not the federal government’s business.