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

Welcome to Capitalism

[eldavojohn]

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

That's the funny thing about Capitalism ... wait for it ... the market decides what the price should be. And right now, they have a very unique piece of property that will cost whatever they want to sell it for because they ... wait for it ... own it! But, you know, let's clamor and argue for the defunding and dissolution of the UN right up until it benefits us personally. This is a very surprising and disappointing action from Paul -- a politician who once rarely (if ever) contradicted himself.

From the horse's mouth:

We must stop special interests from violating property rights and literally driving families from their homes, farms and ranches. Today, we face a new threat of widespread eminent domain actions as a result of powerful interests who want to build a NAFTA superhighway through the United States from Mexico to Canada.

We also face another danger in regulatory takings: Through excess regulation, governments deprive property owners of significant value and use of their properties – all without paying ”just compensation.”

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society. Without the right to own a printing press, for example, freedom of the press becomes meaningless. Congress must work to get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours, right Senator Paul?

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[Sarten-X]

And that just about sums up my feelings, as well.

Ron Paul's a populist politician. He's managed to paint the government as a corrupt agency of fat-cat Democrats, by ignoring the measurable good of government programs and focusing only on how much they cost. He's made the Federal Reserve a scapegoat for everything wrong with the economy, and thanks to the magic of psychology-driven Austrian economics, he can just forget about the economic problems before the Fed existed, because they were just so long ago.

This is yet another chapter in the tale of Ron Paul's subtle hypocrisy. He'll complain about globalization and fight against having any global authorities interfering in private citizens' lives, yet he has no problem running to a global authority to interfere in other people's lives on his behalf.

I'm thrilled the guy's retired (for now). Here's hoping it's permanent, and that his equally-populist son follows quickly.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[rudy_wayne]

This is a very surprising and disappointing action from Paul -- a politician who once rarely (if ever) contradicted himself.

Well you haven't been paying attention.

  As a member of congress he has repeatedly added amendments to spending bills giving millions to his home district. Then when the bill comes up for a vote, knowing that the bill is going to pass, he votes against the bill. That way he gets millions in pork for his constituents and at the same time can claim he voted against a wasteful spending bill.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[DarkOx]

I have been a Paul support and I disagree. I would say unless what they are putting on the site is untrue, in which case its libel and is why we have civil courts, there is no reason they should have to turn over the name or be expected to do so without compensation. Compensation should be the price they set as its currently their property.

You can't call them squatters either they are actually using the domain, have real current content there, and its even related to the subject the name would lead you to expect. What they are doing is more or less the antithesis of domain squatting.

Really I am disappointed in Paul over this one in a big way. I don't see anything wrong with what the people on the site are doing. Actually Paul should be grateful because they are basically promoting him.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[ceoyoyo]

They're not squatters. They run an active web site which is about a public, political figure.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[BasilBrush]

But Microsoft isn't pretending to be a libertarian. This isn't about whether legislation or the power of the UN can get him the domain name without paying for it. It's whether Ron Paul is a hypocrite or not.

And yes, he is being a hypocrite. He want's a governmental body to take someone else's property off them rather than buy it in a free market.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[BasilBrush]

Yes, it's the most delicious piece of libertarian hypocrisy since Ayn Rand took Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[D'Arque Bishop]

Citations provided:

Ron Paul's Hypocrisy on Earmarks, Pork-Barrel Spending

Ron Paul, Big-Government Libertarian

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[nedlohs]

How is it hypocritical for someone who proclaims that people should act in their own rational self interest to do something that is in their own self interest?

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

No one "fears" these hallucinations and masturbatory fantasies you call "ideas". We recognize them as the laughable fictions of the spoiled, the immature, and those with little experience with human interaction. Sometimes when you scream and cry to be taken seriously we find it upsetting and annoying and want to apply some constructive corporal punishment.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

This article makes the point why this is hypocritical:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html

Ayn took the money after criticizing the programs and making the implication that people who took the money were weak. Self interest wasn't her only tenet.

Also, the other implication is that she took the money under a different name to avoid looking hypocritical. That may also be self interest but it also points to a failure to live up to her openly espoused philosophies. It would be interesting to find out how much money she had amassed during her lifetime and whether she had the option to *not* take the money and still be well off. I think that would be particularly hypocritical but I'm unsure of how she did financially.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Because she spent her entire life saying people who accepted help from the government (or anyone) were parasites.

In the end, Ayn Rand because the kind of parasite she spent her life waging jihad against. Yet she never apologized or admitted she was wrong. She simply sponged up those Big Gubment welfare checks.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[Holi]

Bad argument in the Mikerowsoft case as they settled and it did not go to court. In the end Mike Rowe won, it was Microsoft that walked away with the black eye. They origianlly offered him $10, in the end he got Microsoft to pay all of the expenses that Rowe had incurred including setting up a new site at and redirecting traffic to MikeRoweforums.com. Additionally Microsoft provided Rowe with a subscription to the Microsoft Developer Network, an all expenses paid trip for him and his family to the Microsoft Research Tech Fest at their headquarters in Redmond, Washington, training for Microsoft certification and an Xbox with a selection of games.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[guynorton]

Rand wrote in "The Virtue of Selfishness".....that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”

Also....Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel “Pat” Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Lane, with whom Rand corresponded for several years, once quit an editorial job in order to avoid paying Social Security taxes. The Cato Institute says Lane considered Social Security a “Ponzi fraud” and “told friends that it would be immoral of her to take part in a system that would predictably collapse so catastrophically.” Lane died in 1968....

There's an even greater irony here in that she needed health care benefits >> Rand also believed that the scientific consensus on the dangers of tobacco was a hoax. By 1974, the two-pack-a-day smoker, then 69, required surgery for lung cancer. And it was at that moment of vulnerability that she succumbed to the lure of collectivism.

Re:Welcome to Capitalism

[Joe Snipe]

So that's fine, use it. And keep complaining about said benefits existence, it's a valid argument. But by taking those benefits, you can no longer argue that those who do take advantage of said benefits are a drain on our society without being a drain yourself.

Typical Libertarian

[Telecommando]

They're all for "free market" economics until it actually impacts them personally. Then suddenly they want government intervention and special treatment.

What a hypocrite.

Re:Typical Libertarian

[LordLimecat]

Its modded down because its a broad generalization that cant possibly be made honestly unless he has actually see this behavior from a statistically significant number of libertarians. Its similar to BS like "All republicans are racist" (they arent), or "all Democrats are communist" (they arent), and should be modded down as such.

Isnt he the "king of libertarians"?

[Redmancometh]

I actually liked Ron Paul right up to the point of reading this. Anyone who preaches smaller government, less control, more personal freedom, and a truly free economy and does this...Well that person is a hypocritical 2 faced..politician.

Re:Isnt he the "king of libertarians"?

[Sique]

As Alfred Adler once observed: It's easier to fight for your principles than to live according to them.

The One True RICH Ron Paul

[Anonymous Coward]

Property rights are the foundation of all rights in a free society unless the property we're talking about are domain names that you feel are yours

I think this is unintentionally very funny because the domain name is his name, which is presumably his property. Now if he was trying to steal "campaignforliberty.com" that would be an interesting argument assuming they weren't just domain squatters who registered well after the PR campaign started.

If there is a lesson, don't start up a 3rd party site with a name consisting of nothing but the 1st party name. Even "unofficialsupportforronpaul.com" would have been more morally justifiable than just taking the dude's name and slapping a dotcom on the end.

So you're saying there's only one person named Ron Paul in the entire world?

Re:The One True RICH Ron Paul

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Being a libertarian is like being a Highlander. There Can Be Only One.

In the case of a trademark dispute, the disputants are brought to the 'marketplace of ideas' where they compete until only one is left alive, at which point he absorbs the market share of the others.

It's pretty fucking epic, actually.

Re:With friends like that

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

With friends like that who needs enemies.

This is nothing but a $250,000 shakedown by his alleged "supporters".

"Back in 2007 we put our lives on hold for you, Ron, and we invested close to 10,000 hours of tears, sweat and hard work into this site at great personal sacrifice."(emphasis mine).

They are actually quite honest: they invested in him(after all, altruism would have been unethical), and now they want their ROI. This isn't a 'friendship' thing, this is a 'VCs fighting with their start-up's CEO over stock options' thing.