26 votes

Lew Rockwell on Ron Paul v RonPaul.com

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.

--Why did Ron wait so long to bring this claim? He did not feel he could do so as a public official. Once he became a private citizen again, he was freed.

--This fight is not about so-called intellectual property, since it involves private agreements. But if it were, must one agree with Murray Rothbard--who discussed IP more than 50 years ago--to be a libertarian? I agree with Murray, but IP is hardly a make or break issue. Certainly Murray did not see it as such. In the same sense, one need not be an anarcho-capitalist to be a libertarian, though, like Murray, I am one. One can be a constitutionalist or otherwise believe in limited government. Oh, and need I note that Murray loved and admired Ron?

--Is Ron "attacking his own supporters" by his action? Apparently, the RP.com people have never given a dime to any of his campaigns nor educational efforts. Instead, they are attacking Ron. Some supporters. But it will not work. And it will soon be over, freeing Ron from this distraction as he steps up his fight for freedom. Really steps it up, in historic ways.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/132275.html

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

As if "famous" Ron Pauls...

...are more important than other Ron Pauls. Shameful.

Moot point

No other Ron Paul's own the domain name, nor are trying to acquire it.

The fact is....

Ron Paul.com was in fact owned by another Ron Paul and it was purchased by the current owner in 2000.
The first owner did not have a trademark, Per Se

I know And it wasn't

I know

And it wasn't purchased until 2008

Auction date on Ebay

Ron Paul sold it in 2000.

I misspoke, thanks for the clarity....

They know...

...that they have no grounds.

never given a dime to any of his campaigns nor educational

efforts? I thought they claimed to have had money bombs for RP. If so, what did they do with the money?

Michael Nystrom's picture

Never gave a dime

But provided millions of dollars in free exposure through social media. Provided something that money can't buy - support of the grassroots.

It is sad to see it come to this.

With the money bombs, like those on the DP, all the money flowed through directly to the campaign site. Millions of dollars flowed through these sites to the presidential campaigns.

All of that is now conveniently forgotten, flushed down the memory hole.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.

Assumptions....

Is it fact or assumption all the monies flowing through the RP.com site was sent directly to the campaign ?
How does this dispute diminish the efforts and appreciation of the Daily Paul ? Does it have any negative effect on the DP ?

Did you make a conscientious effort to distance this site from Ron Paul the politician to the ideas of his campaign, Peace / Gold / Love ?

Has the Daily Paul been the victims of ANY attacks by Ron Paul ?

Do you disagree with the trademark complaint being made by Ron Paul ?

Respectfully

Nystrom, I really appreciate this

I know this can't be easy to watch. You chose "daily" instead of "ron" and there but for the grace of random chance...
Ron Paul did a LOT of good, TREMENDOUSLY good things. This is not among them. Thanks for sticking up for the 'roots.

Love or fear? Chose again with every breath.

I would

point out or suggest something, which is RON PAUL provided support of the grassroots. Any candidate has the same chance to garner such support. The domain RonPaul.com comes up #1 on Google for "ron paul", as it should according to Google's algorithm. Do you remember all the Blimps and things done saying "Google Ron Paul"?

For the thousands or millions that did, RonPaul.com got free traffic because of the name. I'm not saying the people behind that site didn't provide a technical flow through of support for Ron Paul, but I disagree they provided the support.

The DailyPaul by comparison doesn't come up #1 for "ron paul" yet it is the most popular and highest trafficked site for his supporters. The DP amassed traffic on its own. That is more what I call providing support.

they got free traffic

so sue google.

It's their fault, they get no

It's their fault, they get no sympathy from me. Ron Paul had the domain appraised at $50,000. Yet they turned around and tried to offer it for almost a million dollars.

That "$50,000" BS

Seems like a meme that Lew Rockwell tried to plant, to trick people into the false belief that "the site isn't worth more than $50,000."

Hell, I just had the domain appraised too, turns out it's worth $1,250,000. Now what?

sympathy

they don't need your stinkin' sympathy.

We ALL need TRUTH, universal, actual truth from ALL sides.

Hopefully it isn't conveniently forgotten

I'd like to see RP pay the domain owners at least $50,000 even if he wins the dispute. If he loses, I'd like to see the domain owners drop the asking price considerably. I think we should be able to expect good faith from both sides if this really is about the liberty movement and not just money.

I voted this up, but don't agree with everything in the story

Lew Rockwell is being a contortionist to make Ron Paul's actions jibe with the philosophy Lew promotes. The Lew Rockwell blog header states it is anti-state and pro-market. Somehow enlisting an organization associated with the UN ("Too bad, but one must play the cards one is dealt.") and then using it to take away something of value from someone else without paying for it is really a free market approach?

Lew then says Ron Paul couldn't take action as a public figure. Really? Why? Isn't the real reason is that Ron Paul now wants an internet outlet for whatever private venture he is now embarking on?

The ronpaul.com people seem like hucksters, and they are profiting on Ron Paul's fame. However, I'd rather see the ronpaul.com people taken to criminal or civil court to settle damages.

In addition, as I stated before, there is nothing to prevent Ron Paul's legal team from seizing other domains like dailypaul.com and ronpaulforums.com.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-C. S. Lewis

seizing other domains like dailypaul.com and ronpaulforums.com.

Is highly unlikely...they aren't just his name like RonPaul.com or RonPaul.org. Besides, RP would never agree to such a thing because the owners of those domains are so clearly NOT engaged in cybersquatting. Not to mention, such an action would decimate his support base.

i'm no longer his support

i'm no longer his support base. he lost me before the primaries began in the last election, when he said he was for a flat tax. but apparently he was trying to make a point about the income tax. but he still said he was for it. i only donated 5.53 cents to him because of that. i'm poor anyways. but back in 2007-08 i donated over $337 if i remember rightly.

i'm glad you guys kept up the support though. i'm glad you guys cared.

i think my idea of just having a website called ronpaulforhomeschools.com would be better. and he could use a vaporizer and inhale marijuana to recharge the brain.

i'm serious: ronpaulforhomeschools.com

and he should just inhale marijuana and advocate homeschools.

i was the one who the original idea of "Flo" from progressive insurance. it was a ritual for the illuminati to think of ideas for t.v. shows and movies. the illuminati need humans because they lack creative impulses.

i liked my idea. the actress, Stephanie Courtney initially thought she was insulted, but then she came around to it. i was 21. i didn't remember it, but i saw the girl 10 years late. and i'm like, that was my idea. i'm not looking to collect any credit on it. illuminatis are not nice people to be around. they suck out your life force, just being around them.

say what you want about "flo" - i definitely understand why you would hate her. the problem is though that too many people like her. it was my idea.

so you guys better take me seriously: Ronpaulforhomeschools.com & funnel that idea back up to the top of Ron Paul incorporated.

lawrence

Ron Paul is not for a flat

Ron Paul is not for a flat tax, he's for 0% tax

you are right, he made that

you are right, he made that point later on. But you missed a rally he was at, in april or may, i think in new hampshire, of 2011, and he was said he would be for a flat tax. He was talking about the income tax. i didn't understand the nuances of it. but the fact that he said it sealed my apathy.

he did say it at a rally.

lawrence

You can make that statement but... do you have any proof?

Nowhere does Paul advocate ANYTHING but abolishing the income tax! In the debates it was 'zero tax'.

Johnson was for the unconstitutional 'flat-tax'!

Saying Ron Paul is for a flat tax is to completely misunderstand everything he states, teaches, has written, has voted! Have you read his books on the subject? If you are basing your complete support for a statesman on this issue one would think you would have a serious grasp of his teaching and writings! It is simple to grasp, and there is no mistaking what he teaches.

To say Ron Paul advocates a flat tax is either to be mistaking Gary Johnson for Ron Paul or to believe Ron Paul is 'pro choice' suddenly, and has swapped non-interventionism for advocacy of global war!

Maybe he said he would support

Maybe he said he would support it if a bill was proposed? Just because he wants 0% tax, doesn't mean he should refrain from voting for a flat tax, as it would be an improvement from what we have now.

there you go, you lose the

there you go, you lose the fire of a man that says get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing. now a flat tax has to enter into the equation? i thought we could just bring the troops home and dismantle the standing army and put the bankers in jail. and while gradually scaling back the social welfare programs people are dependent on. - not doing that immediately, but gradually, and kids opting out of social security. i thought that was the plan.

lawrence

cybersquatting. that sounds

cybersquatting. that sounds like the war dept. in dealing with the native americans. those indians are squattin on our land!

destroy those terahertz and gigabytes, this is our domain!

lawrence

I was about to post this

I was about to post this myself. This is important info., about the stupid case that everyone is so worried about. Please vote this thread up and front page it.

thank you lew

for as usual making sense of the brouhaha.

onward liberty! onward ron paul!