Ron Paul Chooses Hypocrisy Over Principles In Fight Over RonPaul.Com

[MarcATL]

The hypocrisy of the RW knows no bounds...

Ron Paul Chooses Hypocrisy Over Principles In Fight Over RonPaul.Com

They simply have no principles. I've long lost whatever little respect I had for Ron Paul.

 

[Avatar4321]

Except, im fairly certain that legally Ron Paul will win this battle because they are profitting off his image.

 

[MarcATL]

Except, im fairly certain that legally Ron Paul will win this battle because they are profitting off his image.

PAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

Clearly, you don't understand the Intawebs...clearly.

*wipes tears from eyes*

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Except, im fairly certain that legally Ron Paul will win this battle because they are profitting off his image.

The site offered to give it to him for free if they could continue working on it. He denied the request and brought up a lawsuit through the UN. The claim is that since he holds a common law trademark on his name he should own the site for free. Since the site was registered through an Australian registrar Paul is using the international authority of the UN.

After combing through his twitter and facebook pages, he has been silent on this issue and won't even respond to his supporters asking "why". I have to agree with MarcATL, he's turned into a major hypocrite. Of course, new information may change the story, but that's reaaaaaaaaaaaally unlikely.

 

[MarcATL]

Except, im fairly certain that legally Ron Paul will win this battle because they are profitting off his image.

The site offered to give it to him for free if they could continue working on it. He denied the request and brought up a lawsuit through the UN. The claim is that since he holds a common law trademark on his name he should own the site for free. Since the site was registered through an Australian registrar Paul is using the international authority of the UN.

After combing through his twitter and facebook pages, he has been silent on this issue and won't even respond to his supporters asking "why". I have to agree with MarcATL, he's turned into a major hypocrite. Of course, new information may change the story, but that's reaaaaaaaaaaaally unlikely.

Repped for honesty.

 

[Mad Scientist]

After doing more research (because I know Marc's not gonna' do it) I see that Domain Name Registry isn't as simple as it sounds. That registering a domain name doesn't necessarily mean you "own" it. The issue of "cyber squatting". And finally, there's a movement afoot to hand control of the Web to the UN.

SideNote: Did you guys know that Obama tried to haul Arizona to a UN Court?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The hypocrisy of the RW knows no bounds...

Ron Paul Chooses Hypocrisy Over Principles In Fight Over RonPaul.Com

They simply have no principles. I've long lost whatever little respect I had for Ron Paul.

Chances are that when one mentions something like "The hypocrisy of the rightwing knows no bounds" they are themselves a hypocrite.

Regardless, I actually find myself vehemently disagreeing with Ron Paul on this issue. The people who purchased the domain name are the legal owners of said domain, and while their asking price for the domain was obviously ridiculous it is their right to set their own price at whatever they think it's worth. Going to the UN to get them to steal it for you strikes me as being quite hypocritical.

Bob Wenzel tries to make an argument supporting Ron Paul going to the UN:

The current owners of the web site criticize Dr. Paul for going to a United Nations organization to force them to turnover the web addresses. They even quote the negative things Dr. Paul has said about the United Nations while he was in office. But what Dr. Paul said about the United Nations and his current actions are not necessarily contradictory. He may not believe that the UN should exist or be an enforcing body, but if they are, that is the body he must appeal to. What is his alternative, to call the local sheriff in the county he lives in?

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: The Battle Over RonPaul.com

The answer is that he doesn't have to try to take this domain name in the first place. This isn't a case of public roads, which many libertarians dislike but use on the basis that they have no other choice.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

After doing more research (because I know Marc's not gonna' do it) I see that Domain Name Registry isn't as simple as it sounds. That registering a domain name doesn't necessarily mean you "own" it. The issue of "cyber squatting". And finally, there's a movement afoot to hand control of the Web to the UN.

SideNote: Did you guys know that Obama tried to haul Arizona to a UN Court?

This is not a case of cyber squatting.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I don't agree with Lew Rockwell on this, but he does make some important points.

There is so much disinformation on this issue that I will probably have to post more than once, but here are a few points:

--Ron is not using the State to acquire RonPaul.com. He could have brought a lawsuit in US government courts, but he did not. He is seeking to have ICANN enforce its own rules against cybersquatting, including the rule against registering a famous person’s name and making money off it. Anyone registering a URL agrees to keep all the rules, just as he must pay a recurring fee. A URL is not private property in the normal sense. It is a license, and ICANN is a private, non-profit organization.

--Ron is not calling on the UN. ICANN has four approved arbitration organizations. Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used. Yes, it is associated with the UN. Too bad, but one must play the cards one is dealt. The UN itself is not involved, though note—whatever else is wrong with it—the UN is not a State.

'RonPaul'.com « LewRockwell.com Blog

More at the link.

 

[GeoLaureate8]

False.


Ron Paul has NOT gone to the UN to strong-arm RonPaul.com | Ron Paul videos - Ron Paul Flix



.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

False.


Ron Paul has NOT gone to the UN to strong-arm RonPaul.com | Ron Paul videos - Ron Paul Flix



.

It's important to make that distinction, but it's also not difficult to see where the confusion comes from.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

False.


Ron Paul has NOT gone to the UN to strong-arm RonPaul.com | Ron Paul videos - Ron Paul Flix



.

It's important to make that distinction, but it's also not difficult to see where the confusion comes from.

It could boil down to semantics. ICANN is a function of the UN. If Ron Paul goes to ICANN over the domain does that mean he went to the UN?

 

[nodoginnafight]

I take this as one of the most compelling arguments I've ever heard supporting the premise that Libertarian principles don't work in the real world.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Except, im fairly certain that legally Ron Paul will win this battle because they are profitting off his image.

The site offered to give it to him for free if they could continue working on it. He denied the request and brought up a lawsuit through the UN. The claim is that since he holds a common law trademark on his name he should own the site for free. Since the site was registered through an Australian registrar Paul is using the international authority of the UN.

After combing through his twitter and facebook pages, he has been silent on this issue and won't even respond to his supporters asking "why". I have to agree with MarcATL, he's turned into a major hypocrite. Of course, new information may change the story, but that's reaaaaaaaaaaaally unlikely.

I want to go back to my earlier post. I've done more reading and investigating and have a clearer picture.

-RonPaul.com did not offer the .com site for free, they had offered RonPaul.org as a free gift to Ron Paul in order to keep the .com site. That offer was refused.

-RonPaul.com did offer to sell the site at a price of $250k. This is where I see the main dispute coming from. Ron Paul is alleging that the site owners are selling him his own name, while the site owners allege they are selling him the mailing list from RonPaul.com (which they value at $250k).

-What's still not clear to me is how much negotiating there was between Ron Paul and the site owners. Did Ron Paul call them? Did they discuss the issues of the domain? Did Ron Paul just have an associate call and then leap to ICANN to sue?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Except, im fairly certain that legally Ron Paul will win this battle because they are profitting off his image.

The site offered to give it to him for free if they could continue working on it. He denied the request and brought up a lawsuit through the UN. The claim is that since he holds a common law trademark on his name he should own the site for free. Since the site was registered through an Australian registrar Paul is using the international authority of the UN.

After combing through his twitter and facebook pages, he has been silent on this issue and won't even respond to his supporters asking "why". I have to agree with MarcATL, he's turned into a major hypocrite. Of course, new information may change the story, but that's reaaaaaaaaaaaally unlikely.

I want to go back to my earlier post. I've done more reading and investigating and have a clearer picture.

-RonPaul.com did not offer the .com site for free, they had offered RonPaul.org as a free gift to Ron Paul in order to keep the .com site. That offer was refused.

-RonPaul.com did offer to sell the site at a price of $250k. This is where I see the main dispute coming from. Ron Paul is alleging that the site owners are selling him his own name, while the site owners allege they are selling him the mailing list from RonPaul.com (which they value at $250k).

-What's still not clear to me is how much negotiating there was between Ron Paul and the site owners. Did Ron Paul call them? Did they discuss the issues of the domain? Did Ron Paul just have an associate call and then leap to ICANN to sue?

But why can't the free market sort this out on it's own?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

False.


Ron Paul has NOT gone to the UN to strong-arm RonPaul.com | Ron Paul videos - Ron Paul Flix



.

It's important to make that distinction, but it's also not difficult to see where the confusion comes from.

It could boil down to semantics. ICANN is a function of the UN. If Ron Paul goes to ICANN over the domain does that mean he went to the UN?

ICANN is a private organization, however.

 

[GHook93]

The hypocrisy of the RW knows no bounds...

Ron Paul Chooses Hypocrisy Over Principles In Fight Over RonPaul.Com

They simply have no principles. I've long lost whatever little respect I had for Ron Paul.

The guy was a porker also. Even though he preached against wasteful spending he approved more Pork for his district than 100s of other House Reps did for those (and let's not forget he was the Rep for a mostly rural district)!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The site offered to give it to him for free if they could continue working on it. He denied the request and brought up a lawsuit through the UN. The claim is that since he holds a common law trademark on his name he should own the site for free. Since the site was registered through an Australian registrar Paul is using the international authority of the UN.

After combing through his twitter and facebook pages, he has been silent on this issue and won't even respond to his supporters asking "why". I have to agree with MarcATL, he's turned into a major hypocrite. Of course, new information may change the story, but that's reaaaaaaaaaaaally unlikely.

I want to go back to my earlier post. I've done more reading and investigating and have a clearer picture.

-RonPaul.com did not offer the .com site for free, they had offered RonPaul.org as a free gift to Ron Paul in order to keep the .com site. That offer was refused.

-RonPaul.com did offer to sell the site at a price of $250k. This is where I see the main dispute coming from. Ron Paul is alleging that the site owners are selling him his own name, while the site owners allege they are selling him the mailing list from RonPaul.com (which they value at $250k).

-What's still not clear to me is how much negotiating there was between Ron Paul and the site owners. Did Ron Paul call them? Did they discuss the issues of the domain? Did Ron Paul just have an associate call and then leap to ICANN to sue?

But why can't the free market sort this out on it's own?

It can. That Ron Paul may or may not be following libertarian principles says nothing about whether those principles can work in the "real world," as you stated in your previous post.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

The site offered to give it to him for free if they could continue working on it. He denied the request and brought up a lawsuit through the UN. The claim is that since he holds a common law trademark on his name he should own the site for free. Since the site was registered through an Australian registrar Paul is using the international authority of the UN.

After combing through his twitter and facebook pages, he has been silent on this issue and won't even respond to his supporters asking "why". I have to agree with MarcATL, he's turned into a major hypocrite. Of course, new information may change the story, but that's reaaaaaaaaaaaally unlikely.

I want to go back to my earlier post. I've done more reading and investigating and have a clearer picture.

-RonPaul.com did not offer the .com site for free, they had offered RonPaul.org as a free gift to Ron Paul in order to keep the .com site. That offer was refused.

-RonPaul.com did offer to sell the site at a price of $250k. This is where I see the main dispute coming from. Ron Paul is alleging that the site owners are selling him his own name, while the site owners allege they are selling him the mailing list from RonPaul.com (which they value at $250k).

-What's still not clear to me is how much negotiating there was between Ron Paul and the site owners. Did Ron Paul call them? Did they discuss the issues of the domain? Did Ron Paul just have an associate call and then leap to ICANN to sue?

But why can't the free market sort this out on it's own?

I think you have a misunderstanding. What Ron Paul is doing is not going against the free market, although I wish he would have chosen a different route. To go against the free market in this instance would be to have the UN draft legislation barring individuals from using certain names and words in internet domain names.

 

[dblack]

Where is the hypocrisy, exactly?