Ron Paul wants to expropriate from his supporters without compensation


165 Responses to “Ron Paul wants to expropriate from his supporters without compensation”

  1. Kevin Loverde says:

    How’s that free market working for ya?

    • Hegelian says:

       Yeah, it seems to me that as a Libertarian Ron Paul should be estopped from trying to use the government to take away someone else’s private “property.” Not their fault RP didn’t think to register the orgs. (Not that I necessarily think they are in the right, either.)

      • margaretpoa says:

         Yeah. I want to catcall both sides of this dust-up.

        • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

          Domain names are a really weird form of ‘property’. If anything, they are sort of the weirdo bastard child of ‘intellectual property’ and fiat currency.
          The fiat currency bit comes in because absolutely nothing except convention gives them any real value. On a technical level, there is absolutely nothing requiring DNS to be globally hierarchical, or for a given domain name to resolve in the same way everywhere(indeed, it is pretty trivial to have your local DNS server do whatever you want, and actually quite common for internal purposes in networks of any reasonable size). There was, in fact, a brief fad in the dot com boom era for various ‘alternate root’ peddlers who tried to convince enough users to point to their DNS roots that they could sell all sorts of oddball TLDs that ICANN was just too square to issue. None of them panned out. In practice, a domain name is only worth the paper it isn’t printed on if ICANN agrees that it is(there could be a ‘free market’ in DNS roots, where customers choose the one that offers them the best DNS service; but all but the most pathetic vestiges of that collapsed under their own weight into the present more-or-less-benevolent-when-not-bumbling monopoly). 

          The ‘IP’ bit comes in because, unlike paper dollars, each ICANN-blessed domain name is unique, and some are a lot more valuable than others, mostly for reasons that fall under the remit of trademark law.

          It’s like watching two ardent gold-standard adherents fighting over a $20 ‘federal reserve note’.

        • Scott Slemmons says:

          (waves flag reading “GO, INJURIES!”)

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      How’s that free market working for ya?

      I think that the more hilarious part is that Mister States’ Rights is trying to use the United Nations to do his dirty work.  If the federal government is bad, shouldn’t the Big Scary World Government be worse?

      • edgore says:

        Well, isn’t dirty work the only thing that the U.N. is good for? /s

      • UDRP stands for “uniform dispute resolution policy” and it is a guideline for how to handle DNS disputes.
        There are different UDRP service providers (mostly regionally specialized). The WIPO is a big UDRP service provider, that it’s part of the  U.N. is a technicality.

        For instance, if Cory where to complain if I went and registered , he would most likely file his complaint with the WIPO because it’s the biggest UDRP provider for his locality (the US and the UK).

        • The Chemist says:

          that it’s part of the  U.N. is a technicality

          No, It is fucking NOT a technicality. Every time someone wants to swipe at the UN, they deliberately ignore all of the organizations within the UN that are purely technocratic and immensely useful in nature. Planes and passports have set standards worldwide in part because of ICAO. You don’t have to buy multiple postage stamps for different countries when mailing overseas because of the UPU. For all of the UNs “uselessness” because it has failed at attaining world fucking peace, it’s been plenty useful for other things. 

          • It’s a technicality because it could be as well any other of the myriad of smaller UDRP providers. The UDRP service of the WIPO is a purely commercial endevour offered by any of an array of other service providers as well. It just happens to be the biggest UDRP provider, I thought I made that ambundantly clear.

          • wysinwyg says:

             You did, but your analysis ignored the point that Ron Paul regularly takes swipes at the UN without acknowledging the useful shit they do.  Now he is taking advantage of the useful shit they do.  Whether or not it is a technicality it is still hypocritical on Paul’s part.

          • C W says:

            Ron Paul believes the UN has no authority on his property.

            Ron Paul wants the authority to recognize his property.

            There is a disparity here.

      • Churba S says:

        Not just Mr State’s Rights – Mr States Rights that at the least hates the UN with a passion, and has been demanding that the US stops recognizing them and expels/bans them from US soil.

      • *checks replies to Antinous*

        Yep, the Paulites are making excuses already.  “It’s just the procedure you have to go through!”  Yeah, and allegedly they’d offered to give him the domain if they could continue the website, and offered to sell him the domain.

        I suppose they could have lied about those two things, but it would be a little weird for them to take a “f**k you, old man!” attitude while running an adoration website for the same man.

    • What does this have to do with the free market?

      It is high hypocrisy on RP’s end, but it simply implies that we should hold values over personalities.

      Personal Property > Ron Paul

  2. Gilbert Wham says:

    Wait, what? Libertarians acting like selfish assholes? I am shocked! Shocked I say!

    • septimar says:

      Pretty sure most selfish assholes are either Conservatives or Liberals. But sure, give in to your tribalistic urges.

      • Gilbert Wham says:

         By no means are other political stripes excluded from such a judgement, far from it; but the reason ‘most’ selfish assholes aren’t libertarians is there aren’t that many of them. Just by-the-bye, it’s not ‘tribalistic urges’ upon which I base said value judgement,  it’s more the selfish things they say that make them look like assholes.

      • Navin_Johnson says:

        Seeing as Libertarianism at its creation and at its core is nothing but a lobbying tool of big business masquerading as a “philosophy”, I’d just say that they’re the elite’s useful idiots. The racism and pot smoking are just the perks to lure them in….

        • septimar says:

          Most Big Business profits from its cozy relationship with government. Many corporations wouldn’t survive without subsidies.
          Racism? Libertarianism is for unlimited immigration. One of the most frequent targets for criticism on the blog Hit&Run of the leading libertarian magazine Reason is Joe Arpaio, the racist Arizonan sheriff, and birthers are regularly mocked there.
          I’d be glad if you could give up a few of your prejudices.

          • Navin_Johnson says:

            Yes, I’m “reverse racist” of what is essentially at its core a movement littered with neoconfederate racist scum like (white power darling) Ron Paul….a lobbyist created movement that believes that people should be free to decide if they want to serve blacks or not…..a sham movement more obsessed with “states rights” than an antebellum slave holder.

          • septimar says:

            You know what, if you don’t want to listen to people explaining to you how libertarians protest against racism or how the confederation was in no way libertarian or that Ron Paul is not even a typical libertarian, more like an Old Right conservative, or that anti-discrimination laws are opposed by libertarians and conservatives of color because they are degrading or that if you oppose state rights you are supporting the war on drugs, in short if you don’t want to understand an ideology you so vehemently but blindly oppose, maybe you should just write your blog instead of using comments, since you are clearly not interested in any dialogue. 

      • wysinwyg says:

        Most numerically.  Proportionally I’d still bet on libertarians.

      • C W says:

        Yes, those Dummycrats and Republicants are such smug tribalist pricks, not like ~us~ Libertarians…

    • GawainLavers says:

      No, even worse:

      At the same time we offered him as a free gift…

      What, free?  Are they a bunch of fucking socialists?  Haven’t they even read “Atlas Shrugged”?

      • Navin_Johnson says:

         Ron Paul should be praising their success at snapping up a valuable domain, instead he’s engaging in “the bitter politics of envy”.

  3. elix says:

    I don’t know how current it is, but it was my understanding during the mid-2000s when owning domains became something consumers actually started to do, the trick with domain squatting something really obvious (like when you are not directly partnered with or run by Mr. Paul) was not to give an asking price, but instead simply accept/reject offers. The logic being that asking for a price, if it was deemed unacceptably high, was essentially holding the domain for ransom because you registered it first, and that then forms the basis for a UDRP complaint to take the domain from you.

    • Funk Daddy says:

      They didn’t squat it though, they used the hell out of it for legitimate gain, selling crap that crap could wear to demonstrate their support for crap in craps effort to crap on the rest of us.

      Ron Paul is in the public domain, you can do anything you want with him. He agreed to that.

      • Churba S says:

        Not just used the hell out of it – Used the hell out of it with the assistance and tacit approval of Ron Paul and the Ron Paul campaigns from 2008 till about a week ago.

      • elix says:

        Oh, granted. I wasn’t trying to imply that the domain holders were not acting in good faith. I’m just saying that setting a definite and large asking price has been used to establish bad faith in UDRP complaints.

        See margaretpoa’s comment below for a more applicable object lesson than “don’t act like domain squatters”.

  4. margaretpoa says:

    So, Ron Paul supporters are finding out that despite their fantasies of him, he’s just another greedy fat cat who will stand on the necks of better but less powerful people to gain whatever it is he wants and that he’ll be a giant hypocrite to do it if he has to. Welcome to Realityland, Paulbots.

    • I have supported Ron Paul because of his bravy and well articulated anti-war, pro-civil liberties, and limited government views.

      Even having these, he is not perfect. Nobody is. Even if he were a child molester, he would still be a hero for speaking against George Bush’s drive to war when few others on either side of the aisle did.

      • Stan Brooks says:

        He is not for limited government. He is for limited federal government. He has no issue with state and local governments pass whatever invasive laws they feel like.

      • Navin_Johnson says:

         pro-civil liberties

        He’s pro liberty in the same way that antebellum America was “Pro-liberty”: For landed white gentry.

    • Holy crap, you mean he’s just another politician, like several of us have been saying for years?

  5. jimdigritz says:

    BS. Denninger nails this – and he is no fan of RP.

    “They registered this guy’s name and started selling merchandise, which had exactly zero value except in conjunction with his name.

    Then they tried to sell him the domain and their mailing list which they compiled using his name and likeness without his consent for $250,000.

    But now that Ron Paul has instead filed a complaint with WIPO, they’re all screaming foul! and claiming that as a Libertarian “trademarks” cannot exist.

    The simple reality is that the value of their “product”, such as it is, would be exactly zero were it not for Ron Paul himself.  It is his visage, his record (such as it is) and his name that have acquired secondary meaning. 

    That is the definition of a strong trademark — something that has acquired secondary meaning but would otherwise be nondescript.

    You don’t own this folks — Ron Paul does.

    And despite not being one of his fans in this regard he is exactly correct.”

    • Dv Revolutionary says:

      Politicians do not have a copyright nor a trademark in their name and likeness for commercial purposes. The law says they don’t. Please do not ascribe such a right.

      You and I are free to make as many Barack Obama collectable dinner plates or gold plated Mitt Romney headed pez shaped stock tickers as we want and sell them to anyone willing to buy them. It is not illegal and it should not prejudice any domain dispute we have one way or another.

    • retchdog says:

      ron paul is neither a product nor a service, despite appearing to be a tool, so trademark doesn’t apply.

      denninger (whoever that is) should consider a career in government. his ability to invent spurious arguments in favor of state interference seems formidable. john yoo would be impressed.

    • On the other hand, the value of Ron Paul would be nothing without his grass roots supporters.

    • Navin_Johnson says:

      They saw a market niche and filled it. Shame he’s so bitterly jealous of their success. Some are makers, and some are takers…

  6. Byte Master says:

    If you didn’t register the domains in bad faith, and have a legitimate interest in them, you keep your domains, **AS LONG AS YOU SEND A RESPONSE **

  7. PhosPhorious says:

    Ron Paul goes crying to the UN.

    Hi.  Larious.

    • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

      You’d probably get fired for it; but wouldn’t it be entertaining to be the WIPO functionary who gets handed that filing by the intake system and has the chance to pen a ‘Dear Dr. Paul, I’m afraid that, as you have so cogently and eloquently stated on numerous occasions  the UN has no constitutional authority over the US or its citizens and we must consider your request beyond our remit.’ letter?

  8. Xof says:

    There is no butt-hurt like Libertarian butt-hurt.

  9. Snig says:

    People worshiping at a cult of personality should use the former postage stamp rule: only honor the dead ones.  Real live humans can let you down.  

  10. MB44 says:

    Initiate Sunday Ron Paul Circlejerk. Beep boop bop bop…

    • C W says:

      It must be Sunday, the NWO is forcing MB44′s imaginary children to be injected with autism and fluoride and hurting his fee-fees.

  11. dragonfrog says:

    Incredibly, Ron Paul’s lawyers are trying to use our FREE offer of against us in an attempt to demonstrate “bad faith” on our part!

    Well I should blasted well think it’s a sign of bad faith – as if any libertarian of good faith would use a TLD reserved for non-profit organizations.

  12. niro5 says:

    It seems to me we should just let the free market figure this out.

  13. Wingnut says:

    Maybe all parents should register their children’s names as domain names at birth. 
    I noticed that someone is squatting on What if some person or group, say like the Westboro Baptist Church, were to buy that name to redirect to their website ( Messiness ensues.

  14. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    If this doesn’t end with UN NWO/ZOG gas mask mooks rappelling from black helicopters to herd the lot of them into the FEMA camps and hand the disputed domain name to some cryptic plenary committee, I will be disappointed.

  15. Vikas Paul says:

    Groupon in  India was in similar position couple of years back resulting in delayed launch.
    Why Groupon is late in India and who delayed it ?

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      I thought that Groupon is delayed because it’s turned out to be a clusterfuck for businesses who try to use it.

      • Funk Daddy says:

        Heh yeah I’m glad it turned out that way.

        I appreciate that people want to “save” money. 

        But the last sort of customer I want is the sort who was drawn  to me to get what I have for less than what I value it at.

        • chenille says:

          Isn’t that the point of offering group rates, though? It means you are willing to sell to customers who would to pay less, but only if you know there’s enough to make it worthwhile. A tool to give you those numbers doesn’t have to be a bad thing.

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Until you offer something at a loss or break-even and you get more orders in one day than you can process in five years. It’s a bankruptcy machine.

          • Snig says:

            And you have new customers who view your view your value as half of what you normally sell it for.  

          • Scott Frazer says:

            “We’re losing money on every sale, but we’re making it up in volume!”

            Groupon won’t sign you up unless you discount your wares at least 50% (I think), then they take half of the gross (I know this one). Unless your margins were HUGE to start with, everyone doing a groupon is losing money. They may be able to write it off as a marketing expense, but honestly they’d probably be better off buying an old fashioned TV ad.

      • Vikas Paul says:

        Let me clarify myself I am talking about Groupon entry into India. You may read the link thati gave in my earlier comment
        Anyways – Their late entry benefited Snap-deal very much.

      • Navin_Johnson says:

         There needs to be a button that will destroy all Yelp reviews with the word “Groupon” in them.

  16. wunder says:

    @jimdigritz:disqus (and others)
    The crux of this isn’t about domain disputes nor the entirety of Ron Paul’s beliefs nor politicians in general – it’s about one specific belief of Paul’s:

    The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people.

    The issue is that after having spent over 3 decades arguing that the UN has oversight over American affairs, Paul is now invoking it in a personal matter. Moreover, he hasn’t even bothered to engage in any domestic resolution mechanisms (e.g., bringing a suit in a US court).

    Regardless of Paul being right legally or morally, this move smacks of hypocrisy – and that’s why this is noteworthy.

    Also, for a slightly broader write-up see

    • Robert Johnson says:

      Certainly sounds dramatic. However.
      As Bryce Steinhoff got into this yesterday:

      There’s a lot of misinformation about this being spread around. Here’s the deal:

      The UN has no authority to strip a domain name from its owner. Ron Paul certainly knows this and that is not what any of this is about. I repeat, none of this is about the UN or their authority.

      When anybody registers a domain name, they voluntarily agree to an ICANN policy called the Uniform Domain-name Dispute-resolution Policy, or UDRP. ICANN authorizes *several* entities to handle arbitration when a third party submits a claim based on the UDRP policy which the domain registrant voluntarily agreed to. In this case Ron Paul’s lawyers choose WIPO, a UN agency. Certain criteria such as trademark rights and “bad faith” are outlined in the UDRP for evaluation by the arbiter, which are the things that Ron Paul’s lawyers mention in their UDRP complaint.

      In the case of and .org, the registrants and registrars are outside the US (this is not necessarily the people who run the sites). Because of this, it is logical that Ron Paul’s lawyers opted to use the UN-connected WIPO agency to do the arbitration. It is *incidentally* connected to the UN; it doesn’t have anything to do with UN “authority”.

      You don’t have to agree with Ron Paul on this as Jack pointed out, but don’t cry NAP abuse when a provision of this voluntary contract is exercised. The arbitration can even be overturned by the courts if necessary, but that’s unlikely.
      Yesterday at 6:32pm

      • Xof says:

        When anybody registers a domain name, they voluntarily agree to an ICANN policy called the Uniform Domain-name Dispute-resolution Policy, or UDRP.

        So, I can register a domain and not agree to this arbitration clause?


        Then I believe the term “voluntarily” is misapplied here.

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      The door is evil. Until I want to go through it.

  17. Sarge Misfit says:

    Is there a support group for those like Ron Paul who engage in self-inflicted reputational suicide?

    • Sarge Misfit says:

       Oh, wait, that’s the GOP, isn’t it?

      • Who in the GOP likes Ron Paul? They wouldn’t even let him in the convention in 2008, and in 2012 would only let him speak if he didn’t touch on foreign policy.

        Republicans, by and large, have a deep seated hatred for the man much more than liberals; he reveals their hypocrisy.

        • Snig says:

          They liked him because he voted with them the vast majority of time.  He made token votes against them that mattered only to his fans, nothing that seriously disrupted their agenda.  It allowed them to largely subsume his voting block by offering minimal concessions, and as you said, not even a convention appearance.  Why wouldn’t they like such an adorable puppet?

  18. ToMajorTom says:

    “…we put our lives on hold and invested 5 years of hard work into Ron Paul…”

    Does that translate to:  “…wasted 5 years but hoped to get a big-ass cash reward at the end anyway” ?

  19. Meiles02 says:

    Wow, that’s sure a sea-change in attitude. Is this really the same guy who said:
    “You can call me he. You can call me she. You can call me Regis and Kathy Lee; I don’t care! Just as long as you call me.”

    Ohhhh, RON Paul….

  20. xpatriate says:

    I guess the RP time share at the Citadel is out now.

  21. efemurl says:

    interestingly  enough….we allow Facebook, Twitter and the rest to expropriate and leverage “Community”  created/owned content into billions of dollars in wealth for handful….

  22. Perizade says:

    Can I just say I really don’t care who wins in this douche off?

  23. technogeekagain says:

    I hereby nominate Ron Paul for this year’s “Not even wrong” award. (Yeah, I know, there’s most of a year for someone to top it.)

  24. Sean Breakey says:

    To a Libertarian, the most valuable possession they have is their name and their likeness.  If they called it it would be a completely different idea, but it’s not, it’s explicitely

    Leaving the internet aside for a second, in no other fashion is it legal to use someone’s name or likeness without their consent, except in the case of reporting on issues of public interest, (

    This is the first time I’ve heard of Ron Paul suing anyone, and he does it for the sake of his own name, likeness, and reputation.

    That sounds exactly like a Libertarian to me.

    • Hegelian says:

      Ron Paul **still has his name and likeness.** Nobody has taken that away from him. What Ron Paul doesn’t have is the **domain name** “”. The two things are not the same thing.

      BTW. Citation needed on your claim that “To a Libertarian, the most valuable possession they have is their name and their likeness.”

      • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

        What also isn’t clear is how the Mr. John Smiths of the world handle the problem… Do you battle to the death in the marketplace of ideas, with the better-recognized one absorbing the brand of the weaker, like some kind of Highlander thing?

        In a bland sort of ‘identity theft is bad, m’kay’ sense, the importance of identity is trivially obvious; but it doesn’t really scale up very well beyond the ‘small city state were people know each other’ level, the human-usable identifiers just aren’t unique(never mind important and constitutionally protected things like satire, parody, commentary, etc.) 

        • Antinous / Moderator says:

          What also isn’t clear is how the Mr. John Smiths of the world handle the problem…

          The John Smith with the most money gets all the rights and privileges. That’s libertarianism in one sentence.

        • Sean Breakey says:

          I like the idea of having a given name and a serial number.  Most surnames are relics as it is, either hundreds or thousands of years old.

      • Churba S says:

        “BTW. Citation needed on your claim that “To a Libertarian, the most valuable possession they have is their name and their likeness.”

        Sounds a bit more like one of those kooky freemen-on-the-land things, doesn’t it?

        • fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

          I’m pretty sure that the freemen-on-the-land version is battling it out in a flurry of cryptic paperwork for ‘’ even now… What will get really interesting is when their interest in peculiar orthographic rules collides with the expansion into arbitrary gTLDs and non-latin character sets. Oh boy.

      • Deb Johnson says:

        Hmmm…. 2 unsuccessful attempts to post my comment below….wonder if it will slide through as a reply?

        First I would like to say that any article written by an anonymous author should be read with skepticism. Nuff said!

        The argument that Ron Paul’s representatives should not go through the set protocol for handling this matter is like saying he should try to buy his groceries with gold coins… ridiculous for intelligent people to make such claims.

        It looks to me like (a privately held domain) duped a lot of Ron Paul supporters (yes the fine print contains a disclaimer) into purchasing Ron Paul swag through the site. These people probably thought this was directly helping the campaign. I certainly was confused by all of the URL’s with his name …. the reason I never bought any online swag. I have been working in the online industry for years and am aware of people purchasing domain names of famous people in the hopes of making a killing by selling it back to the rightful owner.

        In a facebook volley with an advocate of people (whoever they are), Coca-Cola would not sue him for selling a Coca-Cola sign. That depends! Are you selling a sign that was manufactured by someone who was licensed to print that sign???? Reselling something already licensed is much different that manufacturing something new and selling it to the public.

        The name Ron Paul has been made into a Trademark. Do scroll down on this dispute and read the actual complaint (which the current domain owner has been fair to post.) I believe asking originally $848,000 and later dropping the price to $250,000 is nothing but extortion and not free market. Since the site deals exclusively with Ron Paul, his reputation is at stake. If it is sold to a detractor, how will it be used? This “dedicated Ron Paul fan” seems to be, and probably always was, riding the coat tails of Dr. Paul and in it only for the money. Free market advocates do not condone extortion.

        • Hegelian says:

          “dropping the price to $250,000 is nothing but extortion and not free market.

          You keep using keep using that word. I do not think it meas what you think it means.

          It is not extortion to charge more money than someone wants to pay for a product. That is pure capitalism, and a libertarian has no basis to gripe about it, nor any basis to run to the UN or *any* tribunal to have the name taken from its current owner based on a government granted monopoly.

          Read the Techdirt article for something more nuanced than the one-sided story you get from Ron Paul’s Lawyer.

          The article notes how the Internet Archive snapshot shows from the sites very inception that it was not officially affiliated with Ron Paul:

          The website is maintained by independent grassroots supporters of Ron Paul. Neither this website nor the articles, posts, videos or photos appearing on it are paid for, approved, endorsed or reviewed by Ron Paul or his Campaign. For Ron Paul’s official website, go to

          Ron Paul’s case doesn’t pass any tests for trademark issues. There is no likelyhood of confusion because of the disclaimer, and Ron Paul is a politician not a commercial product, and trademarks apply to commerce not to politics.

    • Funk Daddy says:

      He held public office for many years and any reference to him is related to that or his attempt to gain higher office. 

      If you think I have to check with Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi or Ronald Reagan or Sonny Bono to use their name or likeness you are wrong. 

      So long as I don’t pretend to actually be one of them, unless I feel like it.

    • To be fair, the guys who own now bought it from an unrelated Ron Paul for $25K give years ago. The guy had no idea who Ron Paul was.

  25. dawdler says:

    Talk about eminent domains.


  26. Funk Daddy says:

    Check this list thoroughly, it is good for a guffaw or ten.

    You can even get to teh conference by train, although I warn you it is a socialist train taking government handouts at every stop. Doubtlessly on rails of a superior steel stolen from a mighty god VIA hateful taxation.

  27. bryan rasmussen says:

    I just checked and is still available. Maybe he should avail himself of it, I would but my name is not Ron Paul.

  28. bolamig says:

    I’d call them “frenemies” rather than “supporters”

  29. Sirkowski says:

    These libertarians seem mad.

  30. jbond says:

    Telemacchus Sneezed. All over my keyboard.

  31. In counterpoint, a defense of RP’s actions here I hadn’t considered. This is a copy and paste from the comments section at

    (edit: formatting horrible, deleted. Just follow that link and search on page for ‘Galloping’ for a pretty cogent defense of RP’s actions.)

    I think a short defense of RP’s actions can be summed up thusly: even if you are a strict libertarian, if your neighbor breaks your window and refuses to compensate you, you are not a hypocrite for going to the courts – because that is what exists. Libertarians don’t want to get rid of structures like this, but merely make them multi-polar and competitive.

    • Hegelian says:

      “I think a short defense of RP’s actions can be summed up thusly: even if you are a strict libertarian, if your neighbor breaks your window and refuses to compensate you, you are not a hypocrite for going to the courts – because that is what exists.”

      Nope. That won’t wash. Breaking your window is the destruction of actual property. That is not comparable to Ron Paul demanding an internet domain he wants and invoking the power of government granted monopoly (trademark law) to do it. Nor can his running to a UN organization to do it be countenanced with libertarianism or his positions on the UN.

    • C W says:

      “even if you are a strict libertarian”

      Sorry, his shtick is being “Dr. No” and trying to get the UN booted from US soil, running to them is not consistent with the image he actively cultivates and his idiot followers regurgitate.

  32. Deidzoeb says:

    I recall a book by Katie Tarbox titled “” describing her experience escaping from a sexual assault by someone she met on the internet as a teen. Although it made a good title for the book, someone else had already secured that domain name. There was a big scuffle because the owner of was receiving the kind of hatemail and trolling you’d expect from the internet circa 1999. Seems like they tried to sue Tarbox and/or the publisher. Later editions of the book used a slightly different title.

    I’ve always wondered how it shakes out in actual law, but seems like there have been dozens of domains that parody or oppose the person or group whose name they use. Also it’s a little like the way movies & tv still use “555-1234″ phone numbers, on the assumption that any actual number they use will receive thousands of pranks. See the song 867-5309 Jenny. Should domains expect some privacy

    • Hegelian says:

      Another issue that comes up is character names in movies. Producers check to make sure there is either nobody by that name or more than one person by that name so they don’t have to pay that person compensation. I’m not sure what the legal basis for doing that is. The right of publicity laws vary by state so it is probably wiser to make sure that nobody can say their exclusive name was appropriated by a movie. The Katie book people should have done a search and registered an appropriate domain before they published the book.

  33. Neublek says:

    Libertarians,  LOL

  34. Clifton says:

    It is a great pity that UDRP does not, so far as I know, allow for the application of Uniform Draconian Responsible Parenting technique #12:
    “Since you’re both fighting over this, I’m taking it away from both of you and neither of you can have it.”

  35. Nick Riley says:

    Ron Paul can use the name to continue a great cause.  The guys using the domain right now have nothing to stand on.  If they truly wanted Ron Paul’s ideas to get more coverage, they would let Ron Paul use his own name.

    • Gilbert Wham says:

       Horseshit. They are not stopping Ron Paul using his name at all. As mentioned above, they bought the domain from another (merely ordinary) Ron Paul, who gladly sold it to them. Obviously, they paid for that as it had some further value for them, making it a good deal. Presumably, Super Special Saint Ron Paul can gain some pecuniary and/or political benefit from said domain. Why, given his espousal of free market principles, should he not be prepared to pay what the market has decided it will bear for said domain name?

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        Why, given his espousal of free market principles, should he not be prepared to pay what the market has decided it will bear for said domain name?

        Because he’s magic.

  36. Wiki-Truths says:

    Way to shit on your supporters…

  37. SomebodySmart says:

    Well, I just registered RONPAUL.MD and RONPAUL.HM last night and I will give them to Ron Paul, M.D. if he wants them. Of course, I haven’t spent the last few years working on those sites.

  38. Snig says:

    Gosh, thanks for filling us in.  If only the internet had other individuals telling us information about Ron Paul.  

  39. oasisob1 says:

    “You instantly brand him a greedy fat cat.”
    He is a politician.

  40. C W says:

    “You probably don’t even understand what Ron Paul has stood for

    But no. You instantly brand him a greedy fat cat.”

    I’d say they understand just fine.

  41. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    Socialists don’t need radar: The trajectory of any aircraft is fully determined by the dialectic synthesis of the historical struggle between lift and gravity.

  42. margaretpoa says:

    He used to be my Representative in Congress, genius. I think I know him by now. And yes, he opposed the wars and I support that but that one thing doesn’t make up for the fact that he’s a Randian, racist, homophobe who believes that the unemployed should best die and decrease the surplus population. Get off your soapbox.

  43. Anytime I run into a politician with a large cult of personality, like Ron Paul, watch out.

  44. anwaya says:

    Only a moocher would go whining to the WIPO.

  45. Gilbert Wham says:

     Are we sure Ron Paul knows what he’s stood for?

  46. anwaya says:

    Who is Ron Paul?

  47. Selena60 says:

    Ron Paul running off to WIPO to get the site as a freebie is akin to his goddess Ayn Rand fraudulently getting Medicare when she needed it. Of course it can be rationalized by the strong seizing from the weak in classic Libertarian style. But for both it strikes me as a self-centered asshole thing to do; which is, of course another mantra of Libertarianism.

  48. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    He’s an OB/GYN. That’s a kind of doctor who deals with problems in how babby is formed.

  49. C W says:

    Google Ron Paaaaaaaoh fuck.

  50. anwaya says:

    Nothing whatsoever to do with John Galt, then. Amirite?

  51. Gilbert Wham says:

     I use Capitalist Running Dogs to launch all my gliders.

  52. Patrick Elliott-Brennan says:

    Actually you’ve missed out the bourgeois element of wind. It frequently intercedes in the historic struggle, usually on the side of lift but sometimes it has its own aims which can only be understood in terms of self interest.

  53. Les Hutchins says:

    He didn’t write those positions he stood for. His staff wrote them in a newlater that bore his name and which he made a lot of money off of, but forgot existed. He was too busy with editorials about how black men are coming to the suburbs to attack white people.

  54. Funk Daddy says:

    At least, Rupaul -should- have more notoriety than Ron Paul.

  55. Churba S says:

    I think that something rather more akin to Ayn Rand and her claiming of Medicare is the fact that Ron Paul does, in fact, claim Social Security.

  56. fuzzyfuzzyfungus says:

    The petit bourgeois headwinds and tailwinds are ultimately irrelevant: gravitation is the universal property of objects with masses to experiences collective class consciousness and no aircraft can externalize the contradiction between needing to exploit the masses to maintain continual lift and the gravitational effects of those masses forever.

    In some cases, the petit bourgeois will experience a reactionary headwind tendency, and attempt to oppose the thrust of the capitalist mode of production, in other cases they will incorrectly identify themselves with that thrust and constitute a tailwind; but in neither case can they overcome the greater forces that ultimately constitute the revolutionary synthesis.

  57. Tynam says:

    I love all you people with an intense passion.

  58. I’ve seen a theory that Lew Rockwell actually wrote that stuff, to chase off the “Republicans who want to smoke pot”.

  59. C W says:

    “I’ve seen a theory that Lew Rockwell actually wrote that stuff, to chase off the “Republicans who want to smoke pot”.”

    I find it very likely that Rockwell was the ghost-writer, but with those sincere beliefs/cause. I can’t imagine why he’d be exclusionary to any [white] property-owners, though.

  60. anwaya says:

    And the passengers are imperialist paper tigers, to keep the weight down.

Leave a Reply