I think Ron Paul is an early contender for the Chutzpah of the Year Award.
Ron Paul apparently just realized that he’d never secured either RonPaul.com or RonPaul.org and he’s now trying to wrest away control of those domains from some of his fans who’d set up fan sites promoting his beliefs. He has now apparently filed an appeal with the World Intellectual Property Organization, "a global governing body that is an agency of the United Nations” to “expropriate the two domain names from his supporters without compensation.” After rejecting an offer to give him RonPaul.Org as a gift while keeping RonPaul.com and an additional offer to let him buy the sites and the email list for $250,000.
Personally, I think this is immensely hypocritical, but I’d love to hear if others disagree.
I always thought that the one good thing about Ron Paul was that he was always true to his beliefs no matter how unworkable, unrealistic, bigoted, or reactionary they were, but this shows he’s being an utter arse.
I don’t think it’s hypocritical in general to use public institutions you think shouldn’t exist–you can think they shouldn’t exist while at the same time dealing with the reality that they do exist. But there is definitely something just completely weird about Ron Paul using the United Nations to solve an intellectual property dispute. It seems bizarrely out of character.
I don’t care so much about the appeal to the UN, though it is a little curious. But why would he reject paying people for work they did and value they created in service of his name and agenda?
Using the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Arbitration and Mediation Center is not really “appealing to the United Nations.” It’s more in the nature of appealing to a private mediator as provided for by a contract. There are several other such private mediators that can be used under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
I’m not surprised. As I may have mentioned in a thread or two here, I own a somewhat big-name domain name that the owners have rattled sabres at me over a few times. That’s it - they rattle, I respond in perfectly clear terms that add up to “let’s talk,” and I hear nothing further until the next rattle, perhaps a year later. There is a peculiar attitude about domain names among some older, stuffier organizations.
As for Ron Paul, the only thing he could do that would surprise me is make sense. At all. On any topic.
Yeah, it really is crazy to use a common international mechanism for domain name disputes.
I’m waiting for another Ron Paul scandal where he dials 011 to reach someone outside of US. Or, when Ron Paul goes to grocery store and uses fiat money instead of gold. If any of that happens, I’m so done with him as that will be the proof that he is racist. Also, that will be the proof that his stance on drug war invalid.
It is if you’re a flag-bearing big-L Libertarian who denounces such things.
But then, the Libertarian stance seems to be a rigidified form of the attitude “I don’t need all these things from government, therefore they are a waste”… which is subject to quick emendation when one of those services turns out to be personally useful.
Yep, internationalism sucks… until it’s the refuge of an idiot.
As I tried to explain before, this is not Ron Paul appealing to a governmental agency to save him. He’s paying a private arbitrator to adjudicate a dispute pursuant to a contractual provision that exists in all domain name agreements allowing him to do so.
Now, there is also a provision of the U.S. Code that would allow him to bring a claim for cybersquatting before a U.S. district court. Comparatively speaking, taking that route would seem to be a lot less libertarian than the one he has chosen.
Which would make sense if Ron had a contract with his supporters to run the websites in question. But it appears that he has decided to do an end run around the marketplace that is supposed to settle all such matters, by appealing to the very sort of governmental agency that his personal philosophy deplores.
Yeah, the issue isn’t that WIPO is a UN agency, or even that it’s inappropriate to use it to resolve domain name disputes. The issue is that Paul is trying to use governmental apparatus to take something of value that someone else built instead of paying for it like a good capitalist should. I mean, it would be one thing if they were actually just cyber-squatters, but they aren’t. They’ve built a going concern. And they only registered the domains in 08 fer chrissakes.
It is, IMHO, precisely the kind of self-serving contradictory action that all LIbertarians are prone to; they preach and preach and preach, but will happily use the system they decry in ways that completely contravene that preaching whenever it’s to their advantage.
When Libertarians realize that their fantasyland can ONLY exist when it is supported from outside by the kind of strong government they profess to despise, there will be a basis for listening to their babble.
One of the things that makes steam come out of my ears is when a fringe movement claims a common or wide-centrist concept as its very own. The Libbies excel at this, jumping up and down with glee and squealing when a politician of standard stripe states his belief in or support of some generality the L’s think they’ve staked out.
What Gorsnak outlined is simple capitalism, something Libertarians have no proprietary grasp on whatsoever. Just as neither the NRA nor the Tea Party own patriotism.
Typical Lib shot: “Since you don’t decry _______ you’re just [somehow worthless].” This thrown in from left field even when the discussion had nothing to do with _______.
Since you’re obviously for clubbing and eating baby seals raw, we’re not going to listen to you any more.