0335 pc270 Ron Paul vs ronpaul.com

0335 pc270 Ron Paul vs ronpaul.com

Bad Quaker Podcast
With Ben Stone

Ben explains how Ron Paul is aggressing upon the owners of the web site ronpaul.com.

This entry was posted in All Podcasts, Economics, Free Society, Property, Voluntaryism and Competitive Government, Voluntaryism and Law, Voluntaryism and Social Interactions, Voluntaryism and the Zero Aggression Principle and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to 0335 pc270 Ron Paul vs ronpaul.com

  1. Cody says:

    Thank you for breaking this issue down from a voluntaryist & austrian economic perspective. I’ve been quite frustrated at times recently seeing individuals who claim to be of a voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist/austrian economic mindset, attempting to defend Ron Paul’s actions by appealing to the “policies and contract rules” of the government granted monopoly on domain name registration that is ICANN.

    I greatly appreciate you focusing on and deconstructing the three allegations made by Ron Paul’s lawyers in the complaint submitted to ICANN.

    This whole issue probably shouldn’t bother me as much as it does. I think my main contention is that so many individuals who claim to hold the principles of self-ownership derived property rights and the non-aggression principle in the highest respect, are making arguments that contradict said principles.

    Keep up the great work Ben.

  2. GallopingLibertarian says:

    Ron Paul has NOT gone to the UN to strong-arm RonPaul.com
    In a nutshell: Tim Wingate the current owner of ronpaul.com voluntarily agreed to the ICANN rules when he purchased the domain. Ron Paul is disputing the ownership in the only legal method/avenue according to ICANN rules.

  3. Snowdog2012 from Freetalklive BBS says:


    The person that registered the Ronpaul.com domain agreed to a contract when he purchased the domain.

    The contract he agreed to was he was not knowingly infringing on any trademark rights of another party, and if anyone makes a trademark claim, the domain ownership then becomes subject to arbitration.

    There is no aggression here from Ron Paul, the aggression is from the squatter who registered in bad faith and who also agreed to arbitration.

  4. Snowdog2012 from Freetalklive BBS says:


    I disagree with your conclusion about these cybersquatters based on the basic message from Atlas Shrugged.

    If the actions of these cyber-squatters would stand, it would mean any clever lazy parasite, adept at mouse clicks, could find endless ways to exploit hard working producers. These bottom feeders without limits would become extremely sucessful at plunder. This unchecked plunder of the creators could eventually destroy the incentives for the creator. maybe causing the creator to stop creating altogether. the ulimate Atlas Shrugged scenario.

    This is the reason that Liberty isnt Anarchy. Liberty has rules to stop these plunderer.

    Philosophy of Liberty

    • Bad Quaker says:

      1) I reject Ayn Rand as a libertarian, as she stated that she wasn’t a libertarian. So referring to her work means nothing to me. I have no use for her.
      2) You are making the typical statist argument that the ends justifies the means and you are ignoring all other means at achieving the ends, therefore I reject your argument based on sound morals and the Zero Aggression Principle.

  5. eddie free says:

    Powerful podcast, Ben. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue.

  6. Bob Robertson says:

    Domain names are tangible property, and inheritable.

    I would be pissed too, if I was convinced it was RP that is pushing this. It seems substantially out of character for him, so I’m giving RP the benefit of the doubt until I know more.

    He has had staff that have been less than “nice” in the past.

    • Wayd says:

      “Domain names are tangible property, and inheritable.”

      That would seemingly be commonly accepted statist opinion, yes.

      Buy definition, no.

      • Snowdog2012 says:

        This issue isnt about statism. Its about private contracts.

        When Raul Garcias Panamanian company purchased Ronpaul.com in 2008 he signed a contract and agreed to everything involved with the dispute arbitration apparatus.

        There is no Ron Paul aggression here.

        • Bad Quaker says:

          Again, straw man. Snowdog, if you keep spamming my site I’ll ban you. All you are doing is repeating the same misstatement of the argument. Yelling the same lie over and over is annoying.

          • Snowdog2012 says:

            First time posting here. No spamming sir.

            There seems to be a problem with the moderation system.

            The software of this website seems to arbitrarily publish some comments and send other comments to moderation.

            Any duplicate comments made by me were from comments that disappeared and were reworded. This other comment was a reply to someone else.

            Now I see the arbitrary decisions in the software and will not post more than once.

  7. Lou G says:

    Could Ron Paul have exercised the option of a new website called original ron paul or something like that? For going to the US, he should be assigned the website of BadStatist,com!!!

  8. Ben,

    All your points are valid, but you sound INCREDIBLY pissed off. You OK? You sound like you need a hot cocoa and your binky. And the audio is crunchy. The audio combined with your anger hurts my little kitty soul.

    I’m just amazed that you care so much. Sounds like you have residual Great Man woar-ship for Dr. Paul. Who gives a flying poo? He’s a Constitution humper, and copyright is in the Constitution. You sound like a Catholic who just found out that the Pope is a Freemason.

    Relax brother. It’s all good. Life is good. Why do you care so much what a politician does?


  9. Wayd says:

    It is convenient that only one web site can have a given domain name. But isn’t the registration of a domain name and the exclusive use of that name basically claiming ownership of something that can’t be owned.
    Somewhere there must be some violation of the NAP going on to maintain this system of buying and selling “domain” names and excluding others from using the same “domain” name.

    I agree that what Ron Paul is doing or allowing his lawyers to do is wrong.

    On the other hand, I think if he did not want to purchase the existing web site, he should have the option of owning his own website using the very same domain name.
    Does he have this option?

    I’m not that computer savvy, but http://www.ronpaul.com is not an actual web address but a name attached to a web address, no? Why can this name not be attached to two, three, or ten addresses? Why when I type http://www.ronpaul.com into a search engine can’t I get 20 different sites with the exact same name to choose from?

    This is always the biggest problem I come up against. I a truly free society there should be another option…………..but in the real world………..it just isn’t there.

  10. Anon42 says:

    A nice talk, but I wouldn’t necessarily go as far as saying Ron Paul is taking something “tangible” from the site owners, unless we agree that a website is tangible. Even if it is, I think a better analogy for the kid and his ball is that Ron Paul’s kids are playing ball and the neighbor’s kids are playing ball. And then Ron Paul is shouting from across the fence they’d better stop it or he’ll call the cops because the balls are the same size and color and all the kids on the block prefer to play on the neighbor’s yard instead of his.

Comments are closed.