Ron Paul's "Free market" Hypocrisy

F

fishball

New Member
Silver Stacker
Ron Paul is feuding with his rabid fan own rabid fan base over the ownership of RonPaul.com. Paul wants it, but his fans own it. They're willing to sell it to him... for a price Paul doesn't agree with. So now he's taken the dispute all the way to the United Nations.

Paul was interviewed by Conservative radio show host Alex Jones at the beginning of January and said he wished he had control of RonPaul.com. It's not an uncommon wish. Everyone wants to own theirname.com. The site was registered by his fans years ago, though it's unclear who exactly owns the domain. Ownership have protected their identity from public searches. Regardless, Paul supporters have used the site as an organizational tool to help the popular libertarian since.

The proprietors of RonPaul.com say they reached out to the retired politicain and offered him RonPaul.org as a free gift, but if he "insisted" on owning RonPaul.com then they would sell it to him. There was a catch, though. It would be part of a "liberty package" with the site's 170,000 person mailing list for... wait for it... $250,000. They think the price is totally worth it
Click to expand...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/ron-paul-feuding-his-fans/61970/

What a hypocrite.

All for the 'free market' until it doesn't work in their favor.

Much like Ayn Rand's hypocrisy in her criticism of social security programs is enslaving oneself and then going onwards to take social security.
 
The internet domain name system is a monopoly governed by an unelected UN agency. There is no free market in domain names. The only way to resolve an issue is to petition that UN body.

If someone is against government courts, does then using a government court to stop their neighbour from playing loud music at night make them a hypocrite? If Ron Paul has a grievance with a domain name, somehow petitioning the body that governs them is hypocritical?

Are the Silver Stacker community hypocrites because they work and use Australian dollars?

Much like Ayn Rand's hypocrisy in her criticism of social security programs is enslaving oneself and then going onwards to take social security.
Click to expand...

Except that when you live in an immoral system, and pay taxes into an immoral system, it's not immoral to engage honestly in any entitlement it offers.

The fact you would bring up the Rand "hypocrisy" shows the basic failures in your reasoning.
 
I knew I could rile up the Ron Paul fanbois. Their leader can do no wrong. Hah.

vanilla said:
The internet domain name system is a monopoly governed by an unelected UN agency. There is no free market in domain names. The only way to resolve an issue is to petition that UN body.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Ron Paul was offered a price of $250k which he was not willing to take. How is that not the free market at work?

If someone is against government courts, does then using a government court to stop their neighbour from playing loud music at night make them a hypocrite?
Click to expand...

Strawman argument. Nobody is harassing Ron Paul here.

If Ron Paul has a grievance with a domain name, somehow petitioning the body that governs them is hypocritical?
Click to expand...

His grievance is that the price isn't what he wants it to be (probably he wants it to be $0; at least not $250k). Given how he constantly harps on about the free market, yes this is hypocritical. Complaining to a governing body (which should've been ICANN not the UN, the UN doesn't control the internet) because he couldn't get his price is counter intuitive to a free market.

Are the Silver Stacker community hypocrites because they work and use Australian dollars?
Click to expand...

Because Silver Stacker community is one monolithic structure with everyone acting in resonance. Yeah nah, see renovator & auspm.

Much like Ayn Rand's hypocrisy in her criticism of social security programs is enslaving oneself and then going onwards to take social security.
Click to expand...

Except that when you live in an immoral system, and pay taxes into an immoral system, it's not immoral to engage honestly in any entitlement it offers.

The fact you would bring up the Rand "hypocrisy" shows the basic failures in your reasoning.
Click to expand...

I think I hit a nerve.

In her retirement, Paterson declined to enroll in Social Security and kept her Social Security card in an envelope with words "'Social Security' Swindle" written on it.[11]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Paterson

Now that's someone who is worth respecting, not some 2-faced mouthpiece tryhard wannabe like Ayn Rand.

Your fanboy tears, they are tasty.
 
offered him RonPaul.org as a free gift, but if he "insisted" on owning RonPaul.com then they would sell it to him. There was a catch, though. It would be part of a "liberty package" with the site's 170,000 person mailing list for... wait for it... $250,000.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know what a 'liberty package' is? Perhaps part of this?

The value we put on the deal was $250k; we are getting our mailing list appraised right now but we are confident it is easily worth more than $250k all by itself. Claims that we tried to sell Ron Paul "his name" for $250k or even $800k are completely untrue, and there is little doubt that our mailing list would have enabled Ron Paul to raise several million dollars for the liberty movement this year. It would have been a win/win/win situation for everyone involved.

But Paul did not respond to their generous offer. Instead, he went to the United Nations' World Intellectual Property Organization to file a 13 page complaint asking for control of both domains. Oops! Paul's opting for legal action is notable because he's spoken out against the U.N. in the past. They generally aren't very popular among libertarians. They aren't so bad now that he wants control of his own name's website.

And now his fans are pissed:

Back in 2007 we put our lives on hold for you, Ron, and we invested close to 10,000 hours of tears, sweat and hard work into this site at great personal sacrifice. We helped raise millions of dollars for you, we spread your message of liberty as far and wide as we possibly could, and we went out of our way to defend you against the unjustified attacks by your opponents. Now that your campaigns are over and you no longer need us, you want to take it all away and send us off to a UN tribunal?

They have 21 days to get a lawyer and respond. This relationship might be irreparable, though. "That's not cool! We want our old pre-retirement Ron Paul back!" they say. Paul couldn't be reached by Buzzfeed's Rosie Gray for a request for comment.
Click to expand...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/ron-paul-feuding-his-fans/61970/
 
fishball said:
I knew I could rile up the Ron Paul fanbois. Their leader can do no wrong. Hah.

vanilla said:
The internet domain name system is a monopoly governed by an unelected UN agency. There is no free market in domain names. The only way to resolve an issue is to petition that UN body.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. Ron Paul was offered a price of $250k which he was not willing to take. How is that not the free market at work?

If someone is against government courts, does then using a government court to stop their neighbour from playing loud music at night make them a hypocrite?
Click to expand...

Strawman argument. Nobody is harassing Ron Paul here.

If Ron Paul has a grievance with a domain name, somehow petitioning the body that governs them is hypocritical?
Click to expand...

His grievance is that the price isn't what he wants it to be (probably he wants it to be $0; at least not $250k). Given how he constantly harps on about the free market, yes this is hypocritical. Complaining to a governing body (which should've been ICANN not the UN, the UN doesn't control the internet) because he couldn't get his price is counter intuitive to a free market.

Are the Silver Stacker community hypocrites because they work and use Australian dollars?
Click to expand...

Because Silver Stacker community is one monolithic structure with everyone acting in resonance. Yeah nah, see renovator & auspm.

Much like Ayn Rand's hypocrisy in her criticism of social security programs is enslaving oneself and then going onwards to take social security.
Click to expand...

Except that when you live in an immoral system, and pay taxes into an immoral system, it's not immoral to engage honestly in any entitlement it offers.

The fact you would bring up the Rand "hypocrisy" shows the basic failures in your reasoning.
Click to expand...

I think I hit a nerve.

In her retirement, Paterson declined to enroll in Social Security and kept her Social Security card in an envelope with words "'Social Security' Swindle" written on it.[11]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isabel_Paterson

Now that's someone who is worth respecting, not some 2-faced mouthpiece tryhard wannabe like Ayn Rand.

Your fanboy tears, they are tasty.
Click to expand...

Your logic is pathetic. You carrying some sort of chip on your shoulder maybe? perhaps born with a slightly darker tan than you would've preferred? Did the kids at school tease you?? :lol:
 
renovator said:
Lovey80 said:
I'm really disappointed by this.
Click to expand...
In RP or fishball ?
Click to expand...

He wouldn't be disappointed by me reno lol. He has no expectations of me :lol:.

capt.sparrow said:
Your logic is pathetic. You carrying some sort of chip on your shoulder maybe?
Click to expand...

Totally. All of my 6000+ posts are about Ron Paul and Ayn Rand.

KEEP CRYING, YOUR TEARS ARE SO SWEET.
 
Pretty careless of him not to get it back before he went on his first run. Not like he wasn't aware of the internet. It's hypocrisy, you can't complain now someone has built a business around it and wants to sell it. 250K was probably quite reasonable, he should have just coughed it up. It would be probably be much less hassle in the long run.
 
Doesn't sound that much like a free market.

I can't imagine there would be much outside of Ron Paul who would want to buy the site.

Sure if it was XXX.com then I can imagine the free market would push the prices up quite high, way over 250K. But at auction I don't think RonPaul.com would get up to 250k.

Maybe the mailing list of people who like Ron Paul could be worth some money to someone, but probably not to Ron Paul now he is retired. I wouldn't want to pay 250k for a worthless list of names if all I wanted was a website with my name on it.

He probably doesn't even want a website with his name on it, probably just wants to stop cybersquatters posting up things in his name.
 
Jislizard said:
He probably doesn't even want a website with his name on it, probably just wants to stop cybersquatters posting up things in his name.
Click to expand...

I thought it was cybersquatting too at first but it looks to be a legitimate fan-site with a huge userbase.
 
capt.sparrow said:
Your logic is pathetic. You carrying some sort of chip on your shoulder maybe? perhaps born with a slightly darker tan than you would've preferred? Did the kids at school tease you?? :lol:
Click to expand...

So this was your solution to the question, gee I see exactly who you are now.

You don't offer any reason why, just a personal attack.

Where as FB had clearly outlined his view, to which sounds fair and reasonable. If you want any credibility at all, this will certainly not get you any.
 
This is why people should not be idolised. Ideas and facts and evidence matter, not so much the imperfect people, as we all are, who communicate them. People make mistakes. No-one should be free of criticism as long as it is fair. And criticism of an individual does not automatically void all the things they have said.
 
hawkeye said:
This is why people should not be idolised. Ideas and facts and evidence matter, not so much the imperfect people, as we all are, who communicate them. People make mistakes. No-one should be free of criticism as long as it is fair. And criticism of an individual does not automatically void all the things they have said.
Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% and I still personally agree with a lot of what Ron Paul has said in the past.... not al of it, just some of it. He seems alright and by far was the best of a bad mob, but he is human and not infallible.

I dont even disagree with the action he is taking. Does it fit with his principles? No. Would I do the same if put in his situation? Hell yes.
 
Well said Hawkeye, if this is true, then I am disappointed in him. The message he was sending for the role of government was a sound one though.

I wouldn't be surprised if he won the case and used it as a case against the UN.... IE this could be a big stunt between RP and the "unknown" owner of the domain name. If he wins he could say, "see I told you so, the fact that I won is rediculous and is a perfect reason why the UN should not be involved".

Not holding my breath though.
 
vanilla said:
The internet domain name system is a monopoly governed by an unelected UN agency. There is no free market in domain names. The only way to resolve an issue is to petition that UN body.
Click to expand...

Bollocks.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the responsible agency for issuing domain names.

It's a non-profit organisation that was spun off from the United States Department of Commerce in the late 90s. It's based in Los Angeles, California.

If anyone has a dispute involving the content of a domain name being intellectual property of someone other than the person who registered it, the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy allows for arbitration between the parties to be provided by an ICANN-approved dispute resolution provider. All registrars for gTLDs follow this policy and it forms part of the Terms & Conditions people agree to when they register a domain name.

One of those providers is the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), which is a UN agency. There are other dispute resolution provider if you prefer.

There clearly is a free market for domains because people buy and sell them every day and the only reason that market is able to exist in the first place is because ICANN created a set of standards that everyone agrees to abide by.

You're welcome to establish your own alternative DNS root and create your own domain names if you like.
 
Lovey80 said:
Well said Hawkeye, if this is true, then I am disappointed in him. The message he was sending for the role of government was a sound one though.

I wouldn't be surprised if he won the case and used it as a case against the UN.... IE this could be a big stunt between RP and the "unknown" owner of the domain name. If he wins he could say, "see I told you so, the fact that I won is rediculous and is a perfect reason why the UN should not be involved".

Not holding my breath though.
Click to expand...

I think it is possible he will come to his senses. It could just be a poorly thought out move. There has been a lot of just criticism, maybe some will reach him.

The more sensible idea would be for the two of them to get together and see if they can negotiate a deal. That way both parties could put forth their individual concerns. Maybe it's just part of the bargaining process, who knows?

End of the day it doesn't matter all that much. He's just a guy, albeit a generally decent guy who's written a lot of good stuff imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top