Ron Paul Asks UN For Help Geting Control of RonPaul.com Domain From Fans

First time accepted submitter thoughtfulbloke writes "Ron Paul has gone to the United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization to seize control of the RonPaul.com domain from the fans that built it up, rather than purchase it. From the article: 'The proprietors of RonPaul.com say they reached out to the retired politicain and offered him RonPaul.org as a free gift, but if he "insisted" on owning RonPaul.com then they would sell it to him. There was a catch, though. It would be part of a "liberty package" with the site's 170,000 person mailing list for... wait for it... $250,000. They think the price is totally worth it: '"

Comments

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[Austerity Empowers]

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, and I think the hypocrisy comment regarding the UN is noted and as enjoyable as political irony can be. But, taking the high(er) road: this is a website that uses his name, is entirely about his career, and affects him materially. I think there can be only 2 fair outcomes: a C&D asking them to close shop and dissolve, or to hand the domain over to him.

Domain name squatters are at least a magnitude of filth higher than politicians, and the whole "internet real estate" business was a scam 20 years ago and is still a scam today.

Re:Any non-hypocrites in the Federal Government?

[DarkOx]

I commented already I don't think Paul's exception that site or domain be turned over without paying whatever is current owners demand is fair or reasonable.

I also don't think its entirely fair to slam him for going to the UN. After all its how the current rules work, he has done more to oppose them than most but did not get his way. He is still a member of our society though is expected to follow the rules. His taxes were used to fund the operations of the UN just like yours and mine. I don't see why just because his expressed preferences are that the institution should not exist means he should get to take advantage of the services it can offer him, without being automatically called a hypocrite.

Its the same thing when people slam Ayn Rand for cashing her SS checks, well again she spent her life arguing the rules were/are unfair. She lost at the ballot box so had to play the hand she was dealt; why should she have been expected to leave anything on the table?

Now if your argument had been our society should *not* be governed by popular will than I can see an argument that using the rules to your advantage as much as possible might be hypocritical.

I'll forfeit my rights to government services as soon as government forfeits its right to force me into pay the taxes that go to support them.