Comment: I agree-

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: It's not the same argument. (see in situ)

I agree-

Nobody has a right to anybody else's property,

but what's in dispute is to whom the property actually belongs, not whether or not it can/should be taken.

It's also relevant to me that, though I have visited ronpaul.com (used to be a frequenter, until the 2012 election cycle when they were updating less frequently than their competitors, namely dailypaul.com) the ONLY reason I ever initially typed in ronpaul.com into the url box is because I thought I'd see Ron Paul's personal website, not a fansite. The only reason I continued visiting it at the time, was because they were updating with information on Ron Paul and the focal point of their site was Ron Paul. I would bet that there are many people like me on either or even both counts. It's not just that they're using his name, it's that they're using his name, and everything about him, in order to turn a profit from the liberty movement and from him.

Also, the only reason they're the "top visited Ron Paul" webpage is the exact reason that Ron Paul would want the URL - it's the automatic (default) URL that you would expect to represent him. If he wants to have the best chance of success spreading his own message on the internet venue, he needs that URL. Ronpaul.com's operators know that. Do you think this is the first time somebody has bought a URL with the intent to sell it at a ridiculous price to a person or business they know has or will have an interest in the URL?