said by amigo_boy:said by PGHammer:however, by forcing *all* telcos to connect all domestic calls, even those known to associated with traffic-pumping, that is exactly what you are doing..
I don't believe it has to be a slippery slope.
The social goal was to promote telephone service for rural areas (the people living there). Not to promote free services for metro areas. Therefore, I wouldn't require them to serve traffic-pumping schemes.
said by PGHammer:Doing evil in the name of good is still doing evil.
But, we accept (even eagerly welcome) a little evil for collective good all the time.
Things like zoning laws, building codes, food- & drug-quality laws, the SEC and FDIC, social creation of corporate entities -- a legal yet fictional "person" created out of thin air by societal fiat to protect officers and investors from their common-law responsibility for poor business and co-ownership choices.
All those things share the same theme. Impeding on what some people may like to do, so that everyone has the benefit of more predictable outcomes, less personal responsibility for their own choices, etc.
Why should protecting/subsidizing rural residents be different? Why should we stick it to them just because they chose to live in a rural area (and provide metro residents with raw materials)?
And therein lay the *slippery slope* part of my original argument.
·
·