Maybe it's a little provocative and assumptive to call it fanboyism, but I can't figure out what else it could be.
Ron Paul DOES NOT have a right to RonPaul.com. State whatever laws and cases you want, but we all know that "legal" =/= "right".
To you claiming that this is a question of Property Rights: YOU ARE RIGHT.
However, Ron Paul does not *OWN* his name. His name is a concept, not a piece of property. Several other humans (as well as my pet betta) are also called "Ron Paul". It means nothing. Why should one particular Ron Paul be more entitled to a domain name more than any other Ron Paul? Or should one even need to be named Ron Paul?
Many of you are arguing that "Ron Paul" is a brand. So what? What if I had a business named "Ron Paul"? What if I wrote a book titled "Ron Paul," which had nothing to do with the politician? Or better yet, what if the book was titled "R On Paul," the thrilling tale of Rebecca (nicknamed "R") and her sexcapades with a time-traveling leprechaun named "Paul"? Do I have a right to www.ROnPaul.com? No.
Domain names ARE property. Unlike the concept "Ron Paul" (or any other name), ronpaul.com is a unique location on the DNS. Thus, it is exactly like a plot of land and is subject to be claimed. The current owner claimed it legitimately.
No person with a firm understanding of propert rights can ethically practice eminent domain on someone else's duly-claimed property.
"Ron Paul" is just a name... it is intellectual property. To use government to enforce intellectual property "rights" flies in the face of REAL property rights. You can argue that IP is in the Constitution, but I repeat: "legal" =/= "right"... even when it comes to the Constitution.
Some food for thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6_ZqPcNemI
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: