I'm asking for more rights, not restrictions (was Re: Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?)

[mindfuq at comcast.net]

* Jim Choate <ravage at einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 23:06]:
> On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
> 
> > Your actions against telemarketers are successful because both you and the
> > telemarketer are within the same jurisdiction and tort law exists to support
> > your action.
> 
> You're both wrong, his actions are not successfull.

I guess you'd have to define what you mean by 'success' in this case.
Clearly in terms of my own well-being, this activity is successful
because I get an opportunity to vent my frustrations, which is a very
good theraputic feeling, and I also get well compensated for my
trouble.  I feel pretty good about it.  I don't get raging pissed at
telemarkters anymore.  

> In fact they harm the society as a whole and help the company.

You'll have to support that claim somehow.

> The money he 'wins' doesn't come from the company, any more than the money
> that pays the companies lawyers comes from the company. It comes from the
> customers via higher prices.

If it were my choice, such a company wouldn't have any customers.  But
hey, there's a sucker born every minute, and if these telemarketers
are going to seperate idiots from their money, fine by me.  The money
is better off in the hands of the company in this case.

> So what you're actually doing is allowing the company to take more
> money from the community then would have happened without such laws.

I could always pull a republican comeback, and say that the money I
take from the community trickles back into the community :) But I'm
not a republican, so I can only say that the money funds my schooling
(and gambling, which in turn funds my schooling).

If I'm helping the telemarketing company as you claim, I wonder why
telemarketing companies don't excessively intentionally break the law
on a larger scale, and deliberately attempt to rack up the charges.
Hey, I could be a consultant, and advise telemarketing companies how
they can really rack up 1500 dollar lawsuits to really help their
business.  

Really Jim, I guess I'm just failing to see how this is profitable to
the companies.  How do they profit from my lawsuits against them?

> What you're doing is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.

My winnings end up in my pocket, and I'm not exactly rich, so where
else is the money going Jim?  These companies?  How does such a cost
get passed on to the consumer?  Higher prices, you say?  If a company
can turn around and charge higher prices for their product or service
and stay in business, why didn't they do this in the first place?  Why
would it require a lawsuit to get the prices up?

Well, I'll tell you.  The fact is that the company is charging as much
as they can to begin with, because their goal is to maximize profits.
If they can turn around and start charging the customer more to
increase profits, there's no reason why my lawsuit was needed.  The
fact is, if the company has any sense, they're charging as much as
they can from day one.

So while my lawsuit doesn't increase the price to the consumer, it
does deter the company from harassing other consumers on the phone.
So it pays off for everyone.  Consumers get decent prices, and there's
no hidden cost for them to pay in the form of coping with harassing
phone calls.  This cost is removed, thanks to me :)