[debate] proposal: this house will legalize spam

[Gadi Evron]

E L wrote:
> Gadi,
> 
> His point is very valid. By saying we should allow spam because of
> economical reason you actually claimed
> that those economical reasons are more important than moral reasons.

I did no such thing. Your are taking a part of what I said and 
distorting the context.

> Or that if something can earn money for the state,
> it doesn't really matter if it hurts other citizens on the process. He

I did no such thing. Where have I said that? Your extrapolation does not 
follow from the original claim.

> gave you an example of another subject where that claim was used, but
> rejected by people in most countries, showing you that most people
> prefer morality or at least protecting themselves over the country
> earning few more dollars.

He did not give me an example of another subject of relevance, but gave 
me an example of an exactly analogous situation. The fight against 
drugs, while similar in ways (being reactive, going against demand) to 
the fight against spam, they are not analogous.
People do not steal for spam. People do not die of over-dose with spam. 
Your rhetoric is insulting to those families who lost loved ones to the 
drug trade.

We can argue about drugs, or about spam. Which is it?

> On the other hand your argument is a bit flawed from the technical
> point of view. You gave no evidence that taxing spam will actually
> allow the country to earn money nor did you talk about how this

Spam is a money-earning industry, taxation will take some of that money 
and give it to the government. Duh.

> taxation is going to work. People send most spam from other countries,

Attacking the mechanism is silly as is arguing definitions. It will be 
taxed much like any other industry. Once this resolution passes the bill 
in question can discuss the agent which will enforce this regulation and 
what its powers will be.

> and in anonymous way, how will you know who to charge and how much?

Exactly where I am coming from. There is a demand for services of 
marketing email, and while legal alternatives don't exist (which also 
lower costs) the underground market flourishes.

Once they are incorporated and working within the law (as surely 
entrepreneurs will be) the illegal spam operations will suffer.


> Instead I want to raise two points about spam
> First, we should look about what actually bother people about spam:
> -  Spam pretends to be regular mail, disturbing our work flow
> - Most of the spam one gets is not relevant to him, either because of
> where he lives, or not relevant product.'
> 
> Both those issues can be solved by proper mandatory tagging of the
> spam. (Of course one will need to discuss what information
> exactly is going to be there, but this will be left for some
> international standard body).

But in fact, the problem of spam has not been solved, if anything--it 
has become worse. Regardless, we accept that there are means by which 
you can mitigate spam. We believe that by regulating it, the industry 
can be taxed and safety and safety measures can be put in place to 
protect consumers.

> Now that is it showed spam can be done without harming others, I also
> want to point the importance of spam to the economy.

You did not demonstrate spam can be done without harming.

> Actually - without spam to our real mailbox, a lot of small and medium
> size businesses would have had to spend a lot of money, that they
> don't have,  over advertisements.

I week for these small business who invade my private space, but at the 
same time I applaud them! Thank you for bringing that argument to our 
attention. Why should small businesses be forced to become criminals to 
get affordable advertising? Spam would not exist at the level it does 
today as email advertising in the way spam works today would be 
legalized and thus regulated.

> Ely
> 

	Gadi.