The National Do-Not-Call Registry, originally scheduled to go into effect today, has been shuffled in and out of legal limbo for more than a week now. Grievances against annoying telemarketers aside, it’s probably a good thing Americans are being forced to re-examine the propriety of this proposal.

Introduced by the Federal Trade Commission earlier this year, the list encountered some stumbling blocks last week. The first was the ruling by a U.S. District Judge last Tuesday that the FTC lacked the authority to operate such a list. Congress swiftly cleared that hurdle, shuttling legislation through both houses within hours that clarified the role of the FTC to include the maintenance of such a registry. President Bush signed that bill into law on Monday.

The crippling blow to the registry, however, came Thursday when another judge ruled the list violates companies’ First Amendment rights to free speech. As this decision filters through various appeals, the fate of the registry could remain in court for some time.

On the surface, this issue seems like a no-brainer — after all, no one likes being harassed by relentless telemarketers. But is it really wise to look to the government for protection from minor annoyances? Would you change your tune if your job became the annoying one that people wanted to eliminate?

Telemarketing jobs have long been valuable positions for unskilled workers. Telemarketing requires minimal training, and it pays considerably better than comparable unskilled jobs like those in the fast food industry. Notwithstanding, the 50 million phone numbers in the registry thus far, there are obviously people out there who buy from telemarketers. If telemarketing didn’t bring in business for companies, then companies wouldn’t use it.

In an already cutthroat job market, it’s asinine to consider the sweeping elimination of two million low-income jobs, which, according to a Friday Associated Press story, is the number of telemarketers who would no longer be needed by telemarketing firms that no longer had as many numbers to call. The same story said that some small telemarketing firms that contract with big businesses are poised to go out of business rather than attempt to comply with the registry.

If the registry emerges from its legal battles victorious, compliance for businesses will be mandatory, punishable by fines of up to $11,000 per violation. (It’s doubtful that the distressed and disrupted “victim” of the culprit call will see a penny of that, though.) Though companies cannot afford not to comply, the costly upgrades required for compliance are no bargain either. In an economy that’s already wreaking havoc on businesses, what company has room in its budget for the equipment necessary to jump through the government’s latest hoop?

Proponents of the do-not-call list say telemarketing is an invasion of privacy. They argue Americans have a right to decide what comes into their private homes, and that this registry is crucial to the preservation of that right. But the fact is that people can already control what comes into their homes over the telephone — it’s called hanging up or not answering the phone at all.

Defenders of the registry also point out that all the numbers on the list are for people who never buy from telemarketers anyway. In this light, they argue, the registry is an asset to telemarketing businesses, helping them to choose their calls more efficiently. But why should the FTC hold the hand of any business? If businesses want to throw money away on consumers who repeatedly shoot down telemarketers, why should the FTC stop them?

Furthermore, the registry’s aspiration to eliminate annoyances is self-defeating because enforcement, it turns out, is the sole responsibility of consumers. When a registrant gets an unwanted phone call from a telemarketer, it is up to him to report the violation to the FTC, either over the phone or online. What began as a minor annoyance — an unsolicited sales pitch — becomes the lengthy and frustrating process of dealing with government bureaucracy.

A mutually beneficial compromise may emerge from this legal quagmire yet. While the list remains held up in court, the Direct Marketing Association, which includes the nation’s biggest telemarketers, is encouraging its members not to call the numbers on the list. Since the list is there, and it contains numbers with little to no chance of a sell, why shouldn’t telemarketers use it to their advantage?

The fact that such compliance would be voluntary and not punishable by fines should sit better with the telemarketers and with all Americans who cling to the dream of a laissez faire government.