Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

[fides' Jack]

Just now, Dennis Tate said:

But I really am expecting a positive spiritual awakening to happen in all the world over the coming years and decades.  

I am, too.  And it will be so spectacular an event and so sudden that all of this will be moot, anyway.  Money won't exist in the same format.  BMI won't even be a question on anyone's mind.

Instituting a BMI right now will put almost everyone INTO poverty who is not already.  It would pop the bubble that the entire world is currently in, and many millions would be encouraged not to work anymore.  The economy would simply stop.  It would destroy much.

But things being how they are, the government would keep planned parenthood afloat, because satan has much power in the world right now.

5 minutes ago, Peace said:

No, the Church has clearly taught that the imposition of taxes is proper, and not only on the rich.

But the Church has not clearly taught that taxes should be used to give money directly to the poor.  The racist government programs that encourage single motherhood have devastated not just families, not just communities, but whole cultures.

Tax money should be used, as you said, to pay for public infrastructure used by all (including those who haven't paid any taxes), including military.  Under the right conditions, I would even support a tax to fund medical care for all.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

But the Church has not clearly taught that taxes should be used to give money directly to the poor. 

The racist government programs that encourage single motherhood have devastated not just families, not just communities, but whole cultures.

What specific government programs are racist?

I agree that the effect of certain government policies (such as the infamous "no man in the house rule") has been to incentivize families to separate and that it is worth reviewing and modifying welfare laws in this regard. But if we are talking about the breakdown of the black family, for example, I'd have put at least as much, and likely more, blame for that on de-industrialization, poor inner-city schools that have not given men the skills that they need to work in the modern economy, employment discrimination, the prison-industrial complex and racism in the criminal justice system. Welfare laws are also a cause, but the reasons are much more complex than a simplistic right-wing talking point along the lines of "welfare has caused families to separate". But that's a whole new thread.

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

But the Church has not clearly taught that taxes should be used to give money directly to the poor. 

Tax money should be used, as you said, to pay for public infrastructure used by all (including those who haven't paid any taxes), including military.  Under the right conditions, I would even support a tax to fund medical care for all.

Well this idea of yours that poor people should not be given special consideration, that tax dollars should only be spent in a matter in which all people benefit equally from the expenditure, appears to contradict the pope's teaching here:

https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

37. Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. 

Now, obviously there is no special care of poor people by the government, if all laws and tax expenditures must be doled out equally regardless of class, as you suggest above.

Now, in an ideal world there would be no need for the State to intervene and give special consideration to the needs of the poor. In an ideal world we would not need the State to take anyone's money and give it to the poor. Every man would look out for the other families in his community, voluntarily give out of his excess, and the needs of everyone would be met by voluntary action. This is the ideal, but it is pie in the Sky. It is Heaven on Earth. The reality is simply that most of us are affected by this sin called greed. Many of us do not do that at all. Most do not do it to the extent that justice demands. This being the case, the State has the power to step in and do what justice demands.

Let's say we have orphans, or starving children. Sure, rich people can take care of them. But what if the rich people refuse to do so? Is your position that the State, in principle, should have no power to take money from the stingy rich person, and use it to buy food specifically for the starving child? The state has to set up a generic food pantry that is open to everyone, poor, middle class, and rich, alike?

Why, exactly, would it be wrong to give a special preference to the poor?

Again, it is coming back to "I don't like the government taking my money and giving it to someone else" right? The idea seems to be "it is my money and I should have the right to do whatever I please with it. If I want to give money to the poor, I can. If I don't want to give a penny to the poor, that's my right too. I might have to answer to God for that, but the state can't take my money or force me to use my money for something that does not benefit me, or something that I do not approve of".

I think that type of view of "freedom" is inconsistent with what the Church teaches with respect to the universal destination of goods, if that is your view.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Peace

[little2add]

8 hours ago, Dennis Tate said:

But I really am expecting a positive spiritual awakening to happen in all the world over the coming years and decades.  

 B.M.I., money, God given talents explained:

The Parable of the Talents 

One of Jesus’ most significant parables regarding work is set in the context of investments (Matt. 25:14-30). A rich man delegates the management of his wealth to his servants, much as investors in today’s markets do. He gives five talents (a large unit of money)[1] to the first servant, two talents to the second, and one talent to the third. Two of the servants earn 100 percent returns by trading with the funds, but the third servant hides the money in the ground and earns nothing. The rich man returns, rewards the two who made money, but severely punishes the servant who did nothing.

 

The meaning of the parable extends far beyond financial investments. God has given each person a wide variety of gifts, and he expects us to employ those gifts in his service. It is not acceptable merely to put those gifts on a closet shelf and ignore them. Like the three servants, we do not have gifts of the same degree. The return God expects of us is commensurate with the gifts we have been given. The servant who received one talent was not condemned for failing to reach the five-talent goal; he was condemned because he did nothing with what he was given. The gifts we receive from God include skills, abilities, family connections, social positions, education, experiences, and more.

The point of the parable is that we are to use whatever we have been given for God’s purposes. The severe consequences to the unproductive servant, far beyond anything triggered by mere business mediocrity, tell us that we are to invest our lives, not waste them.

 

B.M.I. , Would only hinder a positive spiritual awakening from happening in all the world over the coming years and decades, I’m afraid…

[Dennis Tate]

On 2/20/2022 at 5:21 AM, little2add said:

 B.M.I., money, God given talents explained:

The Parable of the Talents 

One of Jesus’ most significant parables regarding work is set in the context of investments (Matt. 25:14-30). A rich man delegates the management of his wealth to his servants, much as investors in today’s markets do. He gives five talents (a large unit of money)[1] to the first servant, two talents to the second, and one talent to the third. Two of the servants earn 100 percent returns by trading with the funds, but the third servant hides the money in the ground and earns nothing. The rich man returns, rewards the two who made money, but severely punishes the servant who did nothing.

 

The meaning of the parable extends far beyond financial investments. God has given each person a wide variety of gifts, and he expects us to employ those gifts in his service. It is not acceptable merely to put those gifts on a closet shelf and ignore them. Like the three servants, we do not have gifts of the same degree. The return God expects of us is commensurate with the gifts we have been given. The servant who received one talent was not condemned for failing to reach the five-talent goal; he was condemned because he did nothing with what he was given. The gifts we receive from God include skills, abilities, family connections, social positions, education, experiences, and more.

The point of the parable is that we are to use whatever we have been given for God’s purposes. The severe consequences to the unproductive servant, far beyond anything triggered by mere business mediocrity, tell us that we are to invest our lives, not waste them.

 

B.M.I. , Would only hinder a positive spiritual awakening from happening in all the world over the coming years and decades, I’m afraid…

I  actually feel that an UNCONDITIONAL BUT TAXABLE B. M. I. of five hundred dollars per month can make Canadians, Americans, Israelis and Australians MORE PRODUCTIVE IF IT IS financed in the manner done by President Lincoln and attempted by J.F.K. and done again in Canada through our Bank of Canada from 1938 to 1974.  

I believe that several Roman Catholic Economists have explained that the problem is that COMPOUND INTEREST OVER TIME creates far, far, far, far ,far more DEBT than money so........

since very few political leaders will explain this amazingly simple mathematical problem to ordinary people...... the Big Money Investors who control the media can continue to deceive the ordinary people into a situation that can be compared to our being like Gerbils running on a treadmill of debt......

I explained this the best that I could do back in 2006 when I campaigned for public office at the provincial level as an independent...... (independent candidates always lose... but I was attempting to educate Canadians to important aspects of our history so losing another election was a good way to get the point across that I wanted to make).

 

http://bankingsystemflaws.blogspot.com

 

Quote

When well trained workers have high quality technology to work with then the total of all wages and benefits paid out to employees is only a fraction of the retail value of the products they produce. As a result of this fact the only way to move products out of warehouses is to extend higher and higher levels of credit.  One problem with an abundance of red ink is that compound interest on all this government, business and personal debt over a period of decades will grow to astronomical levels.  At this time there is approximately TEN TIMES as much debt in Canada as there is money. A simple explanation for how this happened can be seen here:
http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty34.htm
In my opinion this rather simple mathematical problem is perhaps the number one cause of inflation in the Canadian economy over the past three decades. This is also perhaps the number one reason why our costs of production are so high and Canadian products cannot compete on the world markets as well as they could under better conditions.  

From 1940 to 1970 the Government of Canada put roughly half of the total money supply into the economy through loans issued through the federally owned Bank of Canada. Provincial and municipal governments could borrow the money to build roads, schools, hospitals and sewage treatment facilities at zero or one percent interest. In 1970 we changed our system and since that time a higher and higher percentage of all government debt is financed through loans issued through privately owned banks. At this time it is ninety eight percent. This policy may be great for our banking sector but it was estimated that in the one year of 1995 alone our federal government could have saved roughly SIXTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in interest payments if we had gone back to creating half the total money supply through these low interest rate loans issued through the bank that is OWNED BY ALL CANADIANS.  

Considering that our deficit was approximately thirty billion dollars for that year, simply by changing back to an already proven monetary and banking system, we could theoretically have had a FEDERAL BUDGET SURPLUS OF THIRTY FIVE BILLION DOLLARS in 1995.

The massive cutbacks in the Canadian military, in health care, highway construction, social programs and education were profoundly affected by these accounting practices?  

So what can you and I do about this problem?
1. If we will do our homework and study this question we can put pressure on our provincial level politicians to create a provincially owned bank. A true Bank of Nova Scotia owned by all Nova Scotians could be used to finance town and municipal government projects at zero or one percent interest just as The Bank of Canada used to do.  

2. Town and municipal government officials in New Glasgow, Stellarton and Trenton should seriously consider creating a local currency unit such as has been done in Ithaca, New York.  
http://www.
ithacahours.
org/directory.php
This is a great way to promote local businesses and help sustain rural economies.

3. It is also possible for groups of concerned individuals to get together and organize a local barter exchange as a cooperative. Mr. Rob Assels has been instrumental in just such an initiative in the Tatamagouche and River John area so surely we can get similar organizations up and running here in New Glasgow, Pictou, Stellarton, Trenton and Westville. Here is a link into the Halifax LETS system:
http://
halifaxlets.com/

Back in 2009 and 2010 I tried my best to convince Pope Benedict to do something with this basic concept.

 

http://greendesertstoreducecarbon.blogspot.com

[little2add]

who would receive this  B.M.I money, everyone?

Or would only be only for low income/underprivileged people.   If so, what would be the cutoff threshold to receive benifits?

would this B.M.I be provided to adults only?

would non-citizens receive it too?

what about convics in prison?

In order for this to prevent abortions wouldn't the B.M.I have to be extended to newborn babies?

 

just asking for a friend

[Dennis Tate]

On 2/22/2022 at 5:41 AM, little2add said:

who would receive this  B.M.I money, everyone?

Or would only be only for low income/underprivileged people.   If so, what would be the cutoff threshold to receive benifits?

would this B.M.I be provided to adults only?

would non-citizens receive it too?

what about convics in prison?

In order for this to prevent abortions wouldn't the B.M.I have to be extended to newborn babies?

 

just asking for a friend

Yes...  this has to be to ALL CANADIAN AND USA CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS and soon to all citizens and legal residents in Israel and Australia and then it goes on and on and on from there!!!!

This has to be UNCONDITIONAL BUT TAXABLE..... (this is really NOT my idea but I got this from Economist Milton Friedman but then tweaked his theory slightly for our somewhat different time period).  Dr. Friedman saw how bureaucracy eats up the vast majority of the money that is intended for the poor and bureaucrats tend to increase and increase and increase their power and control over the lives of people which causes them to set in motion a monster bureaucracy that imprisons people in poverty..... and underemployment... but Dr. Friedman's idea can be used to fulfill a verse in Isaiah chapter forty five where all chains are broken and every captive is set free........ and the citizens of four nations to begin with and soon all nations will no longer be vulnerable to aspiring Fidel Castro type of political leaders who do a good job of controlling the media narrative and make it look like they are trying to protect people but they are actually just increasing and increasing and increasing their own level of power and control.  

 

So five hundred dollars per month to all legal residents and citizens from the cradle to the grave and I would suggest that the legalities be done in such a way that mimic the way that the Child Tax Credit is administered here in Canada, (with some legal exceptions in unusual cases), but what I mean is that generally the Child Tax Credit is given to the mother of the child until the child is a certain age, (that idea is kind of brilliant).

This will cost eighteen billion dollars Canadian per month in Canada with our thirty seven point six million citizens and legal residents but....  as that unconditional but taxable B.M.I. turns over three times in the economy it will be taxed back into the treasury and...... if this is plainly and clearly financed in the same way as done from 1938 to 1974 by the Bank of Canada THEN.....

we are now in a position to begin to pay off the national debt of Canada to the tune of eighteen billion dollars or so each month.

Once this is proven to be effective in Canada the USA will adopt our system.... and soon Israel and Australia will follow suit... .(and in spite of all of their many, many, many, many flaws Trudeau and Biden did play the role of bad guys who prepared us to understand all this)!!!!

Most of my ideas on this topic I got from The Michael Journal and are largely founded on top of their explanation for the ..... History of Banking Control in the United States because the brilliant Greenback Monetary Policy Experiment by President Lincoln was obviously being observed by Canadians who seemingly adopted the implications of the President Lincoln Greenback Experiment into our British North America Act that formed the basis for the Constitution of Canada!

The History of Banking Control in the United States Written by Alain Pilote on Saturday, 31 August 1985. Posted in In This Age of Plenty (book)

 

 

Mr. Alain Pilote.... "  

Quote

 

The History of Banking Control in the United States 

Written by Alain Pilote on Saturday, 31 August 1985. Posted in In This Age of Plenty (book)

In this age of plenty - Chapter 49 

The dictatorship of the bankers and their debt-money system are not limited to one country, but exist in every country in the world. They are working to keep their control tight, since one country freeing itself from this dictatorship and issuing its own interest- and debt-free currency, setting the example of what an honest system could be, would be enough to bring about the worldwide collapse of the bankers’ swindling debt-money system.

This fight of the International Financiers to install their fraudulent debt-money system has been particularly vicious in the United States of America since its very foundation, and historical facts show that several American statesmen were well aware of the dishonest money system the Financiers wanted to impose upon America and of all of its harmful effects. These statesmen were real patriots, who did all that they possibly could to maintain for the USA an honest money system, free from the control of the Financiers. The Financiers did everything in their power to keep in the dark this facet of the history of the United States, for fear that the example of these patriots might still be followed today. Here are some facts that the Financiers would like the population not to know:

The happiest population

Benjamin Franklin

We are in 1750. The United States of America does not yet exist; it is the 13 Colonies of the American continent, forming "New England", a possession of the motherland, England. Benjamin Franklin wrote about the population of that time: "Impossible to find a happier and more prosperous population on all the surface of the globe."Going over to England to represent the interests of the Colonies, Franklin was asked how he accounted for the prosperous conditions prevailing in the Colonies, while poverty was rife in the motherland:

"That is simple," Franklin replied. "In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner, creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay to no one."

The English bankers, being informed of that, had a law passed by the British Parliament prohibiting the Colonies from issuing their own money, and ordering them to use only the gold or silver debt-money that was provided in insufficient quantity by the English bankers. The circulating medium of exchange was thus reduced by half.

"In one year," Franklin stated, "the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."

Then the Revolutionary War was launched against England, and was followed by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. History textbooks erroneously teach that it was the tax on tea that triggered the American Revolution. But Franklin clearly stated:  

"The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament: which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England, and the Revolutionary War."

 

 

[little2add]

 

Sounds like a pipe dream, to me.  (crack pipe)

[little2add]

23 hours ago, Dennis Tate said:

five hundred dollars per month to all legal residents and citizens from the cradle to the grave

 

“tax the rich, feed the poor, till they are no rich no more”

 

 

 

23 hours ago, Dennis Tate said:

ALL CANADIAN AND USA CITIZENS AND LEGAL RESIDENTS and soon to all citizens and legal residents

The national debt in the US, today is 30.0 trillion—or more precisely—$30,012,386,059,238

 This amounts to:

$90,271 for every person living in the U.S.

$230,987 for every household in the U.S.

71% more than the combined consumer debt of every household in the U.S.

8.2 times annual federal revenues.

 

so your saying B.M.I. Would be like a “perpetual motion’ machine on the economy?  

 

 

23 hours ago, Dennis Tate said:

Once this is proven to be effective

I have some doubt about this idea’s, effectiveness…

Serious doubts

[fides' Jack]

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Well this idea of yours that poor people should not be given special consideration, that tax dollars should only be spent in a matter in which all people benefit equally from the expenditure

Another straw man.  I never said that poor people should not be given special consideration, or that tax dollars should only be spent in a manner in which all people benefit equally.

Even for firefighters or military, not all people benefit equally...

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

What specific government programs are racist?

Affirmative action.

Among others...

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to especial consideration. The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government. 

I agree with this, but this document from the Church is specific to justice, not government handouts.

Nor would I disagree if you find one specific to government handouts saying the same thing.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Every man would look out for the other families in his community, voluntarily give out of his excess, and the needs of everyone would be met by voluntary action.

Very much like the early Christian communities.  Christian communities, as far as I know, are the only ones who have ever been able to accomplish this.  That could be a false statement, but I've never seen evidence of anyone else doing so.

And Christians remain, by far, more generous even than the US government.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Now, obviously there is no special care of poor people by the government, if all laws and tax expenditures must be doled out equally regardless of class, as you suggest above.

I didn't suggest it.  You inferred it based on insufficient evidence.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Why, exactly, would it be wrong to give a special preference to the poor?

I've never thought, at any time in my life, that we should not give special preference to the poor.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Again, it is coming back to "I don't like the government taking my money and giving it to someone else" right?

No, clearly you've misunderstood everything that I've said.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

The idea seems to be "it is my money and I should have the right to do whatever I please with it.

If it seems to you to be that way, that's on you, not me.

Although, this specific statement is true to a degree.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

Is your position that the State, in principle, should have no power to take money from the stingy rich person, and use it to buy food specifically for the starving child?

Oh, finally a question about what my position is. 

I don't think the state has or should have the power to take money from a stingy rich person just because he is stingy, or just because he is rich.

What I do believe is that the more the state is involved, the more, and obviously so, we see the failed systems that we have in place today in the US, and in Canada, and in Europe - where the poor suffer more than they would have otherwise.

On 2/19/2022 at 7:54 PM, Peace said:

I think that type of view of "freedom" is inconsistent with what the Church teaches with respect to the universal destination of goods, if that is your view.

I agree, and no, that is not my view.

[fides' Jack]

In truth, there are really two different arguments here, as I see it.  One is regarding the moral teaching of the Church as regards the power of the state, and what powers a government should be able to have from a moral standpoint, theoretically.  The other argument is regarding the practical applications of those theoretical limits. 

The Church's teaching on this matter presupposes that the governments are benign, and that they have their citizens' interests at heart.  I think it's fair to say that all or nearly all the governments in the world are now past that point.  The theoretical moral laws no longer apply when the governments are out to kill their own citizens, as is quite painfully clear now. 

All, or nearly all of them, should be stripped of all power.  BUT we can't do that ourselves.  It's not a war we can win.  What we can do is strive, within our legal limits, to remove all rights of government, as best we can - including the ones that we think they might theoretically have a moral right to.  However, we should keep in mind, we are beyond the point where human intervention can save us.  Thankfully, a supernatural intervention is coming soon.  

[Peace]

58 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I don't think the state has or should have the power to take money from a stingy rich person just because he is stingy

Why? The Church clearly teaches that the right to private property is not absolute, that the right to private property is subordinate to the common destination of goods, and that the right to tax is proper.

Again "it is my money can I should be able to do whatever with it as I please"? This view of one's property seems completely contrary to everything that the popes have taught over the past 100 years.

[Nihil Obstat]

3 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

The Church's teaching on this matter presupposes that the governments are benign, and that they have their citizens' interests at heart.

I do not think it does. The Church's teaching is informed by our historical persecutions as much as our political ascendency. When St. Paul wrote "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God", Christians were being systematically exterminated by the Roman governing authorities.

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Why? The Church clearly teaches that the right to private property is not absolute, that the right to private property is subordinate to the common destination of goods, and that the right to tax is proper.

Again "it is my money can I should be able to do whatever with it as I please"? This view of one's property seems completely contrary to everything that the popes have taught over the past 100 years.

So long as what you please to use your money for is rightly-ordered, it's not a completely bad slogan, nor is it contrary to what any of the popes have written.

You're correct in that the Church states the right to private property is not absolute, but it also states that the right to private property is very important.

7 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do not think it does. The Church's teaching is informed by our historical persecutions as much as our political ascendency. When St. Paul wrote "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God", Christians were being systematically exterminated by the Roman governing authorities.

That's certainly worth consideration.  But I don't think it necessarily negates what I said.  

Clearly there is a point at which revolution is acceptable.  I believe it was good that the US claimed independence in 1776, and fought a war to make it happen, and thus denied the rights of the British rulers over them.

Edited February 28, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Nihil Obstat]

27 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

That's certainly worth consideration.  But I don't think it necessarily negates what I said.  

Clearly there is a point at which revolution is acceptable.  I believe it was good that the US claimed independence in 1776, and fought a war to make it happen, and thus denied the rights of the British rulers over them.

I agree that revolution can be a moral option at some point, but I do not think that it is at all clear where that point is. I have serious doubts that the American revolution can be fully justified from a Catholic perspective.

[fides' Jack]

Just now, Nihil Obstat said:

I agree that revolution can be a moral option at some point, but I do not think that it is at all clear where that point is. I have serious doubts that the American revolution can be fully justified from a Catholic perspective.

You may be right.  I used it because in my mind it seemed like a clear example on the spot.  But I haven't put it to the test against Catholic objective morality.

On that specific point, I think we agree.

I don't think it can be denied, though, that most governments, at least in the West, are way more corrupt now than the British were in the mid-to-late 18th century or even the Roman Empire at the height of its persecution of Christians or even the height of its depravity (which are probably at least roughly the same time frame - I'm not an historian).  I mean, I could be mistaken, but although the Romans may have dabbled with something like what we might call "transgenderism", they certainly weren't so far off that they tried to completely deny the dual nature of sex and gender.  It wasn't mainstream.  They didn't try to legislate the acceptance or enforcement of what I can and can't call someone I've never met.  At least, I haven't read of it going that far.  You probably have a better understanding of it than I do.  Did they go that far?