Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website!
In this time and age, there were enormous transformations in our nation’s system which brought us to compete with globalization. Diverse techniques were used which synergized more the organization where we are into. Outsourcing would be another element as we talked about transformations wherein easier ways of transferring jobs were created and additional outputs were produced. All of these were part of change and diversification, but how did the government transcend in these reformation? In what ways they were able to control the system in which both its people and the industry’s sector would benefit greatly?
Is there a fair rule which applies to both parties? Does the role of the government fully exemplified in this epoch or do they have any alternative offer for the people? Does freedom applicable to what the government impose? All these queries would be epitomized as we go along and discuss things further. Telemarketing is part of the most efficient way to offer products to different clients in the easiest possible way. Different companies are in town offering us multi-efficient products which they believed to be the optimum product out in the market place, thus, telemarketing is part of what we may call globalization.
In effect, people tend to be fascinated by the wonderful deliverance of the sales agent and most likely, people will grab the offer. On another note, some would just ignore what has been told to them. Charitable solicitation was another story of asking the people to help out a certain sector to what they are currently pushing thru. It has been said that this solicitation process was another way for the people to contribute to the projects of the government. This was also participation that you truly belong to the realm you currently into and that you are supporting their projects for your co-fellowmen.
Going in depth to what telemarketing and charitable solicitation brought to the people in the community was the focal element of this subject matter. There were a lot of versions as to the acceptance to this circumstance. It has been epitomized how people grab both options and at the same time, how they perceived both as essential to their living. Indeed, there were a positive and negative connotation to such wherein the voice of the government are needed in order to balance the understanding of the people since they are the ones who give authority to the existence of either telemarketing or charitable solicitation.
Perhaps, there exists a freedom for the telemarketers for them to freely expound to the people what they are bound to offer in the market. The efficiency of their products is the ones they are apt to brag for the people to have a glance to what they are offering. But do the people have the right to ignore their offers? On another note, charitable institutions are little by little spreading all over the place wherein they asked for the some contributions for the people to support their projects or even be part of their institutions.
The question now here is how this solicitation allowed by the government and as to what extent it will be allowed? Will the people be required to contribute since it is part of the nation’s projects or the people are still free to choose whether they will ignore or participate? People which comprises the nations are bound with different sets of freedom; freedom that will enable an individual to decode on what to accept or what to neglect. The said instance for an individual would give him also to balance things which they believed to be an efficient way to deliver their lives hand in hand with the rules of the government.
Parallel to what we are exploring in the early part of this paper, the rights of the telemarketers are at hand as well as to which will collide at some point in exercising the rights of the people in the realm, “Either way, it is a question of commercial free speech, advertisers have the right to broadcast their wares but consumers have a right to refuse to listen. This case will test the role of the government in helping consumers block their ears” (Waldmeir, p. 689).
At some point in this argumentation, in view of the telemarketing arena, it has been said that some people get annoyed by the circumstance of prank call which they get out of their busy schedules. There were times that people are forced to listen or at most triggered to just avail the product which agents are offering at the moment. Of course, we cannot just easily banned these calls since it is the telemarketers freedom to sell their goods and for the people to get enlightened by the positive effects of their products. But how about during those busy schedules of the people wherein call are coming and they cannot just easily shut the call?
Government has control on this per se and in lieu of which, there were some agreements that these systems will be lift but along the way, a charitable solicitation will be retain, “Judge Edward Nottingham became one of the most despised men in America when he struck down the registry as unconstitutional in September and the grounds for his ruling made it seem all the more absurd; He objected because the registry would block any commercial calls and not charitable solicitations. Judge Nottingham argued that the government had no right to discriminate between a sales pitch from AT&T and one from the Policemen’s Benevolent Association.
Ironically, he struck down the registry not because it banned too much speech but it banned too little” (Waldmeir, p. 690). Going back to what we repeatedly uttered as freedom, weighing this instance connote some imbalances in the exemplification of system. Allowing charitable solicitation to pursue and shutting the telemarketing procedure would be of great question since this both involves asking the people to contribute some of their precious time to give a chance to this associations. Either telemarketing or charitable solicitation asks for support for the public people, they both ask as well of the time spent for them to be heard.
Wondering why in particular only charitable solicitation was openly accepted by the system was practically another account of conversation. Do we involve public interest as we speak of banning a certain telemarketing and accepting solicitation from charitable institutions? It could be best describe that this instance was mainly focus on how to contribute more for the society and set some aspects of expenses brought about by some offers from the business sector. Indeed, it is a practical consideration but we should never forget as well that both of these eat our time that we might allot to our field of work.
But looking at telemarketing, did it not involve some augmentation of economic stability as it opens doors for consumption wherein it could contribute to the funds of the government as well? Quick fix on some things which might help an individual to easily get things done having the products which has been selling out in the market would also be another account to consider. Essentially, both are still contributing to the realm for it to uplift it stand. But if we are talking about disturbance here, we can clearly say that both telemarketing and charitable solicitation consume our time which at some point disturbs us.
It could be best to say that government should focus on what really the people needs and what possible way thy can contribute their time even without bagging them during those moments which they need more solitude. In fact, there are some bright ways wherein people can devout their time with the projects of the government such as charitable contribution by dropping themselves to the specific offices and then be part of some of its projects and not just an official would just go with a man’s house and solicit without even mentioning deeply what exactly the motives of the association.
Above all of these, it would be best to enlighten the government to what really is efficient to both the people and the business sectors. What possible fair contribution both parties could contribute for the proliferation of the system. Reference: Waldmeir, Patti Freedom of Speech and My Right to Silence at Bath Time