-164 votes

Did Ron Paul Just Destroy His Own Legacy and Legitimacy?

One giant slip for mankind...

Ron Paul Files International Copyright Complaint Against His Own Fans

(This isn't going over very well all over the political map...)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/ron-paul-files-internation...

"Ron Paul has filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization against the proprietors of RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org, according to a blog post on their site on Friday."

snip...

"Even more shocking to the proprietors is that Paul's complaint was lodged with a U.N. agency, an organization that garners mistrust among libertarians...."

---------full article linked above.

Mistrust is not the word! True conservatives find the UN to be reprehensible. Hardcore republicans HATE the United Nations...strong word, but true...and justified.

Good Lord, why did you do that Ron!!! You're a doctor and a politician, so why on earth would you treat a small headache with LSD?

This goes against over 40 years of Ron Paul's grain.

He admitted it was a mistake not to own the site in the first place. The free market demands a fair price, but Ron Paul does not want to pay it even though he is wealthy beyond most of us here put together. He'd rather seek a solution to a relatively small personal problem from an agency of the United Nations of all things?

For real? As if his houses aren't already paid for. Give me a break, Ron Paul. (Never thought I'd say that!)

Did Ron Paul do this because no court or lawyer in the United States would hear or take his case?

Did Ron Paul exhaust ALL American judicial avenues first, before seeking a UN fix to his own personal issues?

I'm totally lost in Ron Paul's, "World Intellectual Property Organization," political sauce.

I feel like a young, rational man who has just been told that Santa's UN Clause is real.

Ron Paul's actions pertaining to the issue of his own domain website seems super hypocritical, and contradicting at best.

The, "free market," solution to the good Doctor's problem would be to make his own website....www.ronepaul.com

Simple solution Ron, with no UN strings attached.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Since when has it been cool

Since when has it been cool for Ron Paul to drink the UN's kool-aid?

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

If you can't read, then we can't help you

people have tried to give you the facts of the case. You could also just go read the argument paul's lawyers submitted on your own.

Since when is it cool to go off half cocked without knowing the facts?

sooo tired of these troll posts...

this subject has already been covered multiple times on multiple forum pages. Ron Paul had to go through international means because the 'fans' that own ronpaul.com did not register the site in the US.

"Because the RP.com guys registered Ron's name in Australia, the international arbitration option must be used."

-Lew Rockwell

Please, see link below for a very good explanation.

http://www.dailypaul.com/274445/lew-rockwell-on-ron-paul-v-r...

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Ron Paul is acting as if the

Ron Paul is acting as if the internet and politics are exclusive to America only.

If some dude in France owned my business website name, that is my own fault and my own problem - NOT some foreign agency's problem to deal with.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

Apparently

there are different rules for well-known or famous individuals. Also, it can become libel when using someone else's name in ways they are. That is illegal, at least here in the US.

li·bel

Noun-A published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
Verb-Defame (someone) by publishing a libel.

Synonyms

noun. slander - defamation - calumny - aspersion - scandal
verb. slander - defame - calumniate - malign - traduce - vilify

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Another point of view

Not sure if this has been linked to or not, but this is from Lew Rockwell.

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

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

I am just going to leave this here and back away slowly

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

Lame

I don't buy this

--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.

Maybe he should have used reason and his own principles rather than FEELINGS?

--This fight is not about so-called intellectual property, since it involves private agreements.

It is about intelectual property rights

--Is Ron "attacking his own supporters" by his action?

YES, RON PAUL's statement is the site is being held in bad faith, and I don't believe that andymore than I believe all those grassroots supporters and their bumper stickers, banners, videos were bad faith.

well put! great comment!

Thank you.

That was some serious telepathy going on

(within a doggone a minute of each other too with the link). Phathead, thanks for posting the whole thing. I was sure I would be 'yelled at' for putting it up the long form.

"The rich man writes the book of laws the poor man must defend, but the highest laws are written on the hearts of honest men."

You Should Make This Into A Post

Seems like many people aren't fully grasping what's really going on.

BUMPING

in the hopes that some of these so-called "loyal" supporters who can't seem to wait to jump on the bandwagon and not give the man the benefit of the doubt before getting ALL THE FACTS - FINALLY GET IT!

The man won it fair and square

if Ron wants it he should pay for it, as should any other person by the name of Ron Paul.

That is why

Ron correctly opted for a third party arbitration. It is not for YOU to decide.

Common sense already decided it

anything else is theft. The man purchased it fairly and squarely. Ron had the same opportunity the other did in purchasing that domain. Ron was slow or wasn't even thinking about it at that time. Now that he is out of office he or his lawyers came up with the idea to try and STEAL it(through arbitration if you will) from the man who purchased it fairly and squarely.

Third Party INTERNATIONAL

Third Party INTERNATIONAL arbitration....

Ron Paul CHOSE this option...and I do not think he chose wisely.

Ron Paul had a choice...to seek legal avenues through contradicting international entanglements, or to create another website. He chose the former, and the doctor's actions simply do not make any sense to me whatsoever.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

I agree Zoo

Second time I have been disappointed with Ron, the first was of course when he chose not to go after the nomination.

the only option

was international. where is the disconnect in your brain here? it's been stated numerous times.

Isaiah 2:4
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Its not his to go after

where the fuck is the disconnect?

not to anybody that matters

.

Ron Paul takes dispute to mediation.

The rest is smear, accusation, innuendo and guilt by association.

Free includes debt-free!

More like

Ron Paul tries to use arbitration in an attempt to steal what someone rightfully purchased.

We'll see.

_

Free includes debt-free!

Agree

.

ZOOAMERICA, Un hack !

So let me get this straight.....The UUUUnited Nations is selling the trademarked name of Ron Paul, first come first serve, to Australians who then attempt to extort Ron Paul out of 880,000 FRN's and they get defended by Ron Paul supporters.........

Is this now Washington DC ? Or this the Daily Paul ?

Liberty News

Hardcore libertarian and Ron Paul supporter begs to the United Nations for their permission to use a sovereign mans trademarked name in competition with that man in a free market !!!!!

Can you imagine, a group professing to be free market capitalist has given federal reserve debt notes to the UN for the "rights" to a US citizens name to be used for commercial purposes, and they are from Australia !!!!!!

Oh, Schite, Now....

...you've gone and done it. You have violated the Eleventh Commandment...Thou Shall Not Speak Anything Critical of Ron Paul.

Do you prefer stoning, public flogging to death, or being drawn & quartered?

Right on cue, the 8monther

Right on cue, the 8monther

Ventura 2012

Was That...

...supposed to be a cogent point, or just attempted 'veteran DP' keyboard bravado?

Either way, an epic lame fail.