Ron Paul and ronpaul.com: The argument I haven’t seen out there

Ron Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Co...

Ron Paul at the 2007 National Right to Life Convention, held at Crown Center Hyatt Regency in Kansas City, MO; June 15, 2007, (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

 

 

 

 

Good insight, Andrew. If ICANN is set up to enforce a government monopoly controlling domain names, which it is like Kinsella says, then the way Kinsella seems to be coming down on this is self-contradictory, as is the position of the ronpaul.com supporters.

 

I heard Kinsella on the Adam Koresh youtube channel interview about this. After explaining how it is a government-mandated monopoly system under the cover of a quasi-private quasi-official organization like the Fed, and how there are some 30 government officials on the Board of it, he then goes on to refer to Ron Paul‘s actions in this matter as a taking, as if it stood in a vacuum outside of a government-enforced monopoly over domain assignments!

The Internet domain name claim system is LIKE FAKE FIAT FED CURRENCY. Use this or use nothing! If the government had stayed out of it, if there were no trademark law, and no ICANN rule-making body, then an interconnecting network of networks could have grown organically, Ron Paul would own his name and there would grow from the free market a way to see what he says without the ambiguities of who claims a monopoly right on the name first. That’s my opinion for a hypothetical obviously.

But like I have said elsewhere, get another perspective. As one who lost by two days of thinking about grabbing the URL for http://www.miami.com (arggh), just imagine the ronpaul.com guys when they went looking for it. They could not BELIEVE their outrageous good luck in finding out that they got there before Ron Paul himself. Grab it quick, Jack, before Ron Paul figures it out!

Now they whine and complain that they want compensation for being first grabber of a trademark-law-guaranteed monopoly.

Either way this goes, I lean to the same Kinsella view of copyright, patent, and trademark laws. But it is blatantly self-contradictory to say you think trademark law is theft, and then support the monopoly control over it that he says he figures will go to the current “owners” of the name. He seems to agree that the claim is an attempt to seize private property, but he did hesitate a bit when he was asked that, directly by Koresh. But it is property with conditions. Under any “natural law” that might be analogous to trademark law considered here, Ron Paul has a higher claim on the political implications of his name than anybody. They rode Ron Paul’s name and his fame to their own claim.

 

Ron Paul a hypothetical plumber in Minnesota, could make a credible claim to the name factor that is being used to criticize the action, but that’s irrelevant here because the present “owners” of the URL do not carry that name except as a government-created fiction.

And Ron Paul is NOT “filing suit”, he is filing a claim. This is an administrative body but it is an arbitration process besides that.

ARE WE DISAPPOINTED WITH RON PAUL JUST BECAUSE HE USES FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES WHEN HE BUYS GAS??!! Or because he had to use the two-party duopoly to make his point and leave his legacy? You think his usurping the Establishment Republicans’ “rightful” ownership of the party deserves any more than a spitting glance?

 

Do YOU pay for your gas with fake counterfeit money?

 

I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion by the savvy loud and fast blast of propaganda that ronpaul.com “owners” executed masterfully and immediately.

 

They claim that they offered it free to Ron Paul without compensation, but this is a moot claim, since they obviously did not mean it. They wanted something in return, or otherwise they would just let him have it. Without monetary compensation, maybe, but they wanted something that, in my opinion, when we know exactly what it supposedly was, was something that was of convertible value. I suspect.

 

Again, we do not fault Ron Paul for using what he calls counterfeit money to negotiate for the fruits of his labor at the supermarket. Nor do we fault ourselves. It is simply does not cut so clearly in the present monopoly franchisee’s favor. We shall see how it falls, but the biggest problem is that this infighting over this issue is distracting attention from the bigger issues of the economic and social disaster fast coming, and all the issues of Ron Paul’s message.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Ron Paul and ronpaul.com: The argument I haven’t seen out there”

  1. trutherator Says:

    It occured to me that what the ronpaul.com web site owners wanted to get out of this was money. They say they want compensation for their time and effort in support, but Lew Rockwell says it appears they never gave the Ron Paul campaign anything from the money they were collecting from sales, as promised on the web site. If that’s true it’s fraud, no matter what good reason they may have had.

    But why are they demanding such an outrageous price? They claim their demands are even reasonable. Oh yeah? They say their mailing list is worth MILLIONS of dollars to Ron Paul. But Ron Paul is making no claim to it.

    Anybody who knows domain names can scoff & laugh out loud at the free offer of the dot-org name. Yeah. Like telling a bum you can’t give him food from your fully-stacked cupboard but if he wants it you’ll give him the weed cuttings from the yard.

    Like telling the divorcing wife you’ll keep the mansion, she gets the cook shack in back, you’ll keep the Audi and she can have the push cart.

    They just want compensation for snatching it up first. If it were a genuine homesteading case, it would be a legitimate claim in my opinion. But the domain name rules and structure are NOT physical real estate. Kinsella has said that himself.

    I work in IT (software engineer) and have thought about the Internet from a libertarian perspective for a long long time.

    In a true free market world, private enterprise would have found a way for us to access Ron Paul’s web site, as Ron Paul’s. Of this I am solidly convinced. It would have eventually become easy, like Apple’s user-friendly offerings made devices easier to use and carry. We would not have a government-mandated method to force a DNS monopoly like this.

    There would have been no dispute possible because quick innovators like the whiners who have profited from ronpaul.com (no harm in that) would have had to find another way to address themselves.

  2. Why Ron Paul has a claim on his name in the Internet Name Monopoly | Trutherator's Weblog Says:

    […] * Ron Paul and ronpaul.com: The argument I haven’t seen out there (trutherator.wordpress.com) […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: