And that’s really it, IMHO. The current holders staked out the property and made improvements; under all Libertarian theory I’m familiar with, if RP wants it, he’s free to buy it at whatever price the owners care to set.
It isn’t that he’s using currently valid processes to get it; it’s that he appears to be abandoning or negating every principle he stands for by not negotiating with these political peers, allies and supporters to rectify a mistake that never should have been made.
When are people going to wake the fuck up and realize that Ron Paul is absolutely a capital R Republian, not a Libertarian, and Libertarians or libertarians would be wise to distance themselves from him at every chance they get, instead of lionizing him.
IF people want to say he’s a RINO or a Libertarian then he’s one of the most hypocritical Libertarian/libertarians that have ever existed. If he’s a Republican, he’s just a run of the mill politician.
This doesn’t surprise me at all and it’s not hypocritical at all because Ron Paul is not what many people think he is. He is an opportunistic, sniveling fool who wants to get his wacky way no matter how he achieves it.
Exactly. Which is why this was a mistake for his brand. His coalition of old right conservatives and libertarians are both skeptical of global governing bodies like the UN.
I would say that since the domain name is registered with a private corporation, they would be the ones using force to hand it over to Paul, pending the decision of the UN agency (which seems unlikely to favor Paul in this instance). The current owners agreed to this voluntarily.
Come now. He has, in public speech, strenuously advanced some positions that were dramatically counter to mainline Republican Party doctrine–condemning Bush’s military adventures, and advocating drug legalization, for example.
Paul is certainly open to criticism on various grounds, the present matter of the website among them, but “just a run of the mill politician,” he is not.
No one has argued this.
No one argues against the fact that the law and org exists to take the domain from one holder and award it to the other, or that RP doesn’t have some basis for pressing his claim, and in this manner.
That he is doing it instead of negotiating with the holders - who are his rare political kin, avid supporters and were cost-free assets to his campaign - is the issue. That he is using methods and processes he has denounced and which are contrary to his stated political principles is the further issue.
Since the job he wants is running the country according to these principles, and he will only be elected by mustering enough political kin to vote him in… okay, he’s not a dick. He’s just stupid.
They staked out property on his name. They profited from his speechmaking, writing, etc. it’s not a simple homestead situation. I’m inclined to agree with you, but that’s what the arbitration agreement is for.
What specific principle is he negating?
Can I get a quote from Ron Paul which signifies his objections to the participation of public agencies in arbitrating disputes over property?
Weren’t all proceeds of the website donated to the campaign? That money already went to Ron Paul, or at least his campaign. They didn’t profit from the site at all, except in media recognition when this ugly business came up.
Would you like a quote from Ron Paul discussing his opposition to United Nations’ activities in general? Here you go…
“Today we have international government that manages trade through the WTO. We have international government that manages all international financial transactions through the IMF. We have an international government that manages welfare through the World Bank. Do these institutions really help the poor people of the world? Hardly. They help the people who control the hands of power in these international institutions and generally they help the very wealthy, the bankers, and the international corporations…
I think this is a time to think very seriously about whether this is wise to continue the funding of the United Nations. I think that a statement ought to be made. We should say, and the American people, I think, agree overwhelmingly that it is about time that we quit policing the world and paying the bills at the United Nations way out of proportion to our representation”
Ron Paul, 9/18/2001, speaking on his amendment to defund the United Nations.
I dunno guys, I think we’re looking at this all wrong.
As far as I can tell, the true core principle of libertarians is “being a dick”. And in this situation, it’s indisputable that Ron Paul is being an absolute raging cock. So, therefore, can we accuse him of hypocrisy? I think not! Indeed, Paul is embodying all that libertarianism holds dear; using his superior position to crap on people below him, calling for the de-funding of organizations because they are useless and harmful, and then realizing their value when they become necessary, and just generally being a penis.
Ron Paul IS the face of libertarianism! Truly, he’s never wavered from that which he holds most dear: being a tool.
Ok and if the UN was defunded there would be another agency to settle the dispute. He didn’t choose the UN agency to settle the dispute! It is the policy of ICANN because the domain was registered in Australia to my understanding. In this case the UN is not using government force in any way. They simply make a decision and ICANN has decided through its policy that it would abide by this decision.
Stupid, sure, though when your political career is largely over, there’s not much harm in alienating your supporters.
It’s hard to see it as hypocritical, when voluntary arbitration is part of much libertarian thought, and in this case the owners of the site freely agreed to such arbitration.
You’re right, those libertarian principles that you just made up seem awful. Give me a turn beating your straw man.
That’s not the hypocrisy that I see. Arbitration is fine; I just don’t believe that he has a righteous claim.
Beyond that–isn’t there a hypocrisy in identifying one’s cause with one’s personal political career? Shouldn’t Ron Paul want “Ron Paul” libertarianism to go forward untarnished, after he’s gone, for the good of the country and stuff?
I wonder if it’s a straw man to assume that the other person’s post was completely serious about Libertarian’s core principles? Do you think she actually believes that it is literally a formal libertarian principle to be a dick?
That said, there aren’t a whole lot of people who loudly and publicly espouse libertarian principles who aren’t huge members most of the time. After all, people who don’t think the scales should be actively rebalanced in their favor tend to be silenter, even if they in principle think the system should change. And, human nature being what it is across all political spectrums, people who try to tip things in their favor via practical political philosophy also tend to try to tip things in their favor through any means necessary. But I can’t help but assume that calling dickishness a libertarian principle was a bit humorous.
I agree that his claim is weak and he will most likely lose in arbitration.
In that our political system is one of compromise and cynicism, for good and for ill? Or am I misreading you?
I don’t know about “should”, no. I don’t ask for uncompromising ideological purity from elected officials, in the American system that’s simply not realistic.
It’s a written medium, I can only take people at their word. There’s emoticons and other means in to indicate that a post was meant in jest.
To the extent that all demagogues, politicians, pundits and talking heads tend to be narcissistic, partisan, blowhards, yes. I don’t think libertarians can be singled out as especially dickish, though.
I thought her description fit the Republican Party at least as well as libertarians, but that it might be dickish to point that out. :dubious:
I think you must have misread me. I’m not talking about ideological purity. I’m talking about caring what happens in the political realm, apart from its ramifications for one’s own career.
Hasn’t Ron Paul already argued strenuously that he does not own his name, and that things that are done under his name have no connection whatsoever to him? Why is he sending his attack lawyers against ronpaul.com, instead of sending them against the racist newsletters he published?
Within reason, sure.
I don’t think Ron Paul’s actions in this case will be particularly damaging to Libertarianism, or libertarianism. Mr. Paul may or may not agree. If he believes that his actions will diminish support for an ideology that he has long championed as being beneficial to our society, then that’s a selfish act, though not a particularly hypocritical one.
It’s not the use of arbitration to settle his dispute that makes him a hypocrite, it’s the fact that he thinks he has a claim that needs to be arbitrated that makes him a hypocrite.