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

[nodoginnafight]

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.

He is asking the UN to intercede on his behalf. Because free market principles alone (as always) fail to provide the minimum level of protection required.

 

[dblack]

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.

He is asking the UN to intercede on his behalf. Because free market principles alone (as always) fail to provide the minimum level of protection required.

Do you understand that modern free markets require a solid set of laws - at a minimum dependable protection of property rights - to operate at ll? Libertarians like Paul aren't anarchists. I'm still not seeing where he's done anything hypocritical here. Did he ever say anything opposing the anti-squatting rules on domain names?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Do you understand that modern free markets require a solid set of laws - at a minimum dependable protection of property rights - to operate at ll?

Yes, I do - I understand that very well. Thanks.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

He is asking the UN to intercede on his behalf. Because free market principles alone (as always) fail to provide the minimum level of protection required.

Assuming that Ron Paul is in the right on this issue, which is certainly not clear.

 

[g5000]

Ron Paul is going to lose. He was perfectly OK with those web sites in the beginning. If they were truly "cybersquatting" he would have taken them to court right out of the gate. He should have challenged them the moment he became aware of them.

Since he didn't, he is going to lose.

Stupid Libertarian didn't even bother to write a contract with them when they were established?!? Aren't Libertarians all about contracts?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul is going to lose. He was perfectly OK with those web sites in the beginning. If they were truly "cybersquatting" he would have taken them to court right out of the gate. He should have challenged them the moment he became aware of them.

Since he didn't, he is going to lose.

Stupid Libertarian didn't even bother to write a contract with them when they were established?!? Aren't Libertarians all about contracts?

Ron Paul is probably not going to lose, and how do you write a contract with a site made by your supporters independent of you?

 

[g5000]

Ron Paul is going to lose. He was perfectly OK with those web sites in the beginning. If they were truly "cybersquatting" he would have taken them to court right out of the gate. He should have challenged them the moment he became aware of them.

Since he didn't, he is going to lose.

Stupid Libertarian didn't even bother to write a contract with them when they were established?!? Aren't Libertarians all about contracts?

Ron Paul is probably not going to lose, and how do you write a contract with a site made by your supporters independent of you?

He is going to lose because he did not sue them right out of the gate. He was more than happy to let them exist when it suited him. So he loses.

As for a contract, he accepted cash from them for his campaign, didn't he?

He's toast.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ron Paul is going to lose. He was perfectly OK with those web sites in the beginning. If they were truly "cybersquatting" he would have taken them to court right out of the gate. He should have challenged them the moment he became aware of them.

Since he didn't, he is going to lose.

Stupid Libertarian didn't even bother to write a contract with them when they were established?!? Aren't Libertarians all about contracts?

Ron Paul is probably not going to lose, and how do you write a contract with a site made by your supporters independent of you?

He is going to lose because he did not sue them right out of the gate. He was more than happy to let them exist when it suited him. So he loses.

As for a contract, he accepted cash from them for his campaign, didn't he?

He's toast.

He won't lose because he was a public figure at the time, and now he has a case because he's no longer a public figure. That's his logic at any rate.

No, he didn't accept cash from them for his campaign. RonPaul.com was in no way affiliated with either of Ron Paul's Presidential campaigns.