tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post2675892528388070766..comments2024-03-28T09:59:13.754-07:00Comments on bionic mosquito: Ron Paul Dot Com 2.0 bionic mosquitohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comBlogger43125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-22143069375896759822013-02-14T17:03:24.837-08:002013-02-14T17:03:24.837-08:00“You quote the word "forced" three times...“You quote the word "forced" three times, as if I had used it. Did I?”<br /><br />No you did not. I apologize.<br /><br />“Yes, someone has to own whatever-it-is, and as owner makes the rules. Does it follow that it's illegitimate to challenge that ownership, and therefore the rules made by the so-called "owner"? Does it follow that it's illegitimate to protest the rules, even if ownership is not in dispute, if they are experienced as arbitrary and immoral?”<br /><br />No, it is quite appropriate to protest the rules. It is also quite appropriate to advocate change to the rules. But this is not what the controversy is about, nor is it the subject of my post. <br /><br />“…but it could be the metaphoric death of their ongoing work….This is not to be lightly dismissed, in my opinion.”<br /><br />I do not. Is there something I wrote that suggests otherwise? <br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-14379220443980861472013-02-14T15:31:42.411-08:002013-02-14T15:31:42.411-08:00You quote the word "forced" three times,...You quote the word "forced" three times, as if I had used it. Did I?<br /><br />Yes, someone has to own whatever-it-is, and as owner makes the rules. Does it follow that it's illegitimate to challenge that ownership, and therefore the rules made by the so-called "owner"? Does it follow that it's illegitimate to protest the rules, even if ownership is not in dispute, if they are experienced as arbitrary and immoral?<br /><br />You attempt to make a distinction between my ("admittedly extreme") example and this case using the word "distress". My comparison is therefore "invalid". Well, I never meant to imply that the situations were equivalent, only to imply that the same kinds of considerations apply. <br /><br />The internet is practically the only game in town for communicating ideas these days. The owners of RonPaul.com would not literally die if he yanks it away from them, but it could be the metaphoric death of their ongoing work. Or perhaps just a diminution, but in any case a severe disruption. This is not to be lightly dismissed, in my opinion.JdLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-15247052241386481912013-02-14T15:07:29.652-08:002013-02-14T15:07:29.652-08:00To the extent that there is any freedom in the wor...<i>To the extent that there is any freedom in the world in 100 years (of which I expect more, not less), I am quite certain how history will remember Dr. Paul.</i><br /><br />But that's not the point, is it? Has ANYBODY claimed that this action negates all the good work Ron Paul has done? The point is: THIS ACTION IS WRONG. That is all.JdLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-67400977436528106902013-02-14T14:57:22.021-08:002013-02-14T14:57:22.021-08:00“Here's an admittedly extreme example of the p...“Here's an admittedly extreme example of the point I'm trying to make:”<br /><br />There is distress in the example you use. There is none in the example of the website domain registration. The registrants were not forced to begin a web site – they were under no distress to do this. No one threatened them with death if they didn’t open the website.<br /><br />“He failed to avail himself of the opportunity to secure that domain, and he should bear the consequences…”<br /><br />He will bear the consequences either way – either by leaving it alone even though he felt wronged somehow, or by taking the action he has taken.<br /><br />“How did these "owners" acquire this "ownership"?”<br /><br />Every property has an owner. The owner is in his right to control, use, and disposition of the property. Do I like that in this case the ownership is not clean, cut-and-dry private? No. But that doesn’t change the fact that the owner gets to make the rules regarding use of property. Who besides the owner should?<br /><br />There are public universities throughout the US. Do I like that these are state-owned and controlled? No. But someone has to decide the rules of use, or am I missing something? Who should it be if not the owners of the university?<br /><br />Now, I am not talking about state-activities that would not be proper in a libertarian society – again, drone piloting as that task is commonly understood. <br /><br />But there are state-activities that, absent the state control, would be legitimate in a libertarian society. A university education would certainly be a possibility in a libertarian society, as would domain name registration and the corresponding dispute adjudication.<br /><br />“It seems entirely bogus to me to hand over "ownership" to some arbitrary panel of bozos who make ridiculous, arbitrary, and immoral rules.”<br /><br />Someone gets to decide the rules. And if you don’t like the rules, don’t play the game. Someone will arbitrate the rules. If you don’t like the arbitrators, don’t play the game. No one is under pressure or duress to register a domain name. <br /><br />To claim that someone is “forced” to register a domain name is incorrect. To compare it to an example (even extreme) of a person making a terrible choice in a life-and-death situation is an invalid comparison. <br /><br />I have made choices to not enter agreements with partners that I felt were unreliable. This is the choice the domain name registrants had if they didn't like the partner or the rules. <br /><br />Domain name registrants are not forced to play the game.<br /><br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-40405553391418496542013-02-14T14:31:40.874-08:002013-02-14T14:31:40.874-08:00JdL, please see my reply immediately above regardi...<i>JdL, please see my reply immediately above regarding the requirement for agreeing to these terms by the registrant.</i><br /><br />Yes, that's why I acknowledged that from a <i>legalistic</i> standpoint this is all on the up-and-up.<br /><br />Here's an admittedly extreme example of the point I'm trying to make: a pregnant woman shows up on the doorstep of Mr. Jerk, dying from fatigue and cold. It's miles to any other dwelling. He agrees to take her in and nurse her back to health, if she'll agree to let him cut off the right hand of her baby when it is born. After the birth, he shows up, cleaver in hand. Is she wrong to protest?<br /><br /><i>Given the nature of the man, as demonstrated over 40 years of public life, I tend to believe the actual reason leans toward the more innocent, as opposed to the more nefarious. </i><br /><br />I don't really care what his reasons were. He failed to avail himself of the opportunity to secure that domain, and he should bear the consequences, not run whining to some trumped-up board. <br /><br /><i>If the registrants want to make use of the entirety of internet infrastructure in support of their venture, the owners of that infrastructure have every right to place conditions on the use.</i><br /><br />How did these "owners" acquire this "ownership"? My knowledge is admittedly spotty, but if I'm not mistaken, many tax dollars have gone into the infrastructure of the internet. It seems entirely bogus to me to hand over "ownership" to some arbitrary panel of bozos who make ridiculous, arbitrary, and immoral rules.JdLnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-25869469696164118442013-02-14T14:05:29.713-08:002013-02-14T14:05:29.713-08:00My mistake and I apologize, it had been awhile sin...My mistake and I apologize, it had been awhile since I posted and I misread the time stamps. I was thrown by how quickly my last posts were approved.D. Lawless Hardwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416599643576620796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28055245253036273732013-02-14T14:03:42.940-08:002013-02-14T14:03:42.940-08:00You have declined to post my last response. You ju...You have declined to post my last response. You just said you would. Other posts have been approved while I wait. Please follow through with your promise.D. Lawless Hardwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416599643576620796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-85584127596029304652013-02-14T12:58:35.301-08:002013-02-14T12:58:35.301-08:00"No one has a *right* to having a website&quo..."No one has a *right* to having a website"<br /><br />I agreed. But if no one has a right to having a website, then Ron Paul doesn't either.<br /><br />And you agree, or at least "don't disagree" that ICANN only has authority only because of the brute force of the gunvernment behind them.<br /><br />So...this essentially comes down to an appeal to a group of thugs with guns, hoping that they will favor a VIP over an average person.<br /><br />This is why my focus has been on someone explaining to me what claim Ron has to the website WITHOUT appealing to an authority such as ICANN. If ICANN developed and operated in a free market, then I would obviously (as I am consistent) have to accept their decision as private organization that can do as it pleases. However this is not the case. Ron needs to prove, at least to some degree that he has a LEGITIMATE claim to the domain using ONLY libertarian philosophy. Any appeal to the current state of affairs only proves/demonstrates what is allowable by law, not what is the MORALLY CORRECT thing to do.<br /><br />You guys are killing your credibility. In my opinion you are showing yourselves to favor state intervention when it suits you.<br /><br />I do appreciate you posting my remarks though, good day.D. Lawless Hardwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416599643576620796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-52326275138613599512013-02-14T12:24:03.599-08:002013-02-14T12:24:03.599-08:00Derrick, I can see why Rockwell stopped replying t...Derrick, I can see why Rockwell stopped replying to you. I will try one last time:<br /><br />“You are essentially saying that Ron has no right to the website either.”<br /><br />I say no such thing.<br /><br />“You haven't answered the libertarian part.”<br /><br />Contracts and licenses are libertarian. Meeting obligations is libertarian. Non-violent adjudication of disputes is libertarian. Web-name registration contradicts no libertarian principle that I am aware of. The only issue is that the underlying entity comes with some taint of government. Yet all functions taken on by this entity would be acceptable in a libertarian society. <br /><br />Rothbard and others have spoken quite well about this dilemma. Please familiarize yourself with his writings on this.<br /><br />“Every answer you give frames it as "libertarian" but within the constructs of the state sponsored monopoly ICANN.”<br /><br />Walking is also libertarian, yet every time I do it I find myself within the constructs of a state sponsored sidewalk. <br /><br />What are you suggesting? That if the only place available to appeal for justice is in a government (or quasi-government) system, a libertarian is just out of luck? Please. Show me the established libertarian principles that lead you to this conclusion.<br /><br />“ICANN did not obtain it's authority over the domain names in a legitimate manner.”<br /><br />Even if this is true, it doesn’t change the fact that they have authority. <br /><br />“Every answer you give assumes ICANN has a legitimate claim to the domains as their "property" OR that they at least have legitimate authority to manage the DNS system. They do not.”<br /><br />I say nothing about the system as it is currently established is legitimate in a libertarian sense. What I say is that the function is legitimate. What I suggest is that owners of the property (in this case, the internet and the backbone and all aspects that make this system function) get to decide the rules for its use. That the “owners” come with a government taint is secondary. Would I rather see a more free-market system? Certainly. Would a free-market system be more legitimate? Yes. <br /><br />The currency and banking system as it is currently established is not legitimate, yet the function served by these is legitimate. You fail to see the problem with your reasoning.<br /><br />“That doesn't mean that I have to agree that ICANN is legit or that the Fed is legit.”<br /><br />I have not asked you to. <br /><br />“Again, you are assuming ICANN is the owner of all these domains. They are not.”<br /><br />But they are. Or at least they have the authority to assign and adjudicate.<br /><br /> “They "own" them because there are guns pointed at anyone that wants to seriously disagree.”<br /><br />I don’t disagree.<br /><br />“If the Ron we know has a claim to it, then so does every other Ron Paul on the planet.”<br /><br />Let them file a claim, if they are so inclined.<br /><br />Derrick, you have said your peace, I have said mine. Unless you come to the table with something new, I will let my comments until now stand as is.<br /><br />In the meantime, I will post whatever you send as long as it stays respectful.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-23729398200680859032013-02-14T11:58:35.383-08:002013-02-14T11:58:35.383-08:00"It is HIGHLY controversial to assert that Ch..."It is HIGHLY controversial to assert that Christ Pantocrator resorts to violence."<br /><br />Perhaps. But, and I don't want to turn this into a theological debate, I read the Old Testament as well.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-65370327548224908142013-02-14T11:55:01.268-08:002013-02-14T11:55:01.268-08:00Sorry, something got screwed up, my first response...Sorry, something got screwed up, my first response below was intended to be in this thread.D. Lawless Hardwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416599643576620796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-86537538323552760942013-02-14T11:28:04.960-08:002013-02-14T11:28:04.960-08:00I am uncertain that I would consider overturning t...I am uncertain that I would consider overturning tables as violence....not even aggression. Under the system of private temple law, Jesus( being a Rabbi) was justified in removing trespassers( the money changers were trespassing on private property). Jesus was clearly removing trespassers,who knew better than to be where they were at, as was his obligation under Jewish law. The Book says that he drove them out, it does not say that he struck them. It is HIGHLY controversial to assert that Christ Pantocrator resorts to violence. It is true that Jesus knew about in advance and allowed Peter to keep his sword but did not allow him to use it. It is a matter of tradition that Peter carried a dussack, which it intended exclusively for defense. It is also thought that Jesus allowed the presence of the weapon in order to demonstrate that not even a weapon of defense would be needed to achieve the Kingdom of Heaven.<br /> If we wish to rely exclusively on Christian anthropology to achieve our ends then we need do no more than to do as instructed in Matthew 19:21; there we will find perfection. Since I am sure that most of us do not have the spiritual violence within us to follow that command, Jesus has allowed other less severe paths to deification.Stop The Statehttp://stopthestate.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-81400202479468142772013-02-14T11:27:37.501-08:002013-02-14T11:27:37.501-08:00Again, you are assuming ICANN is the owner of all ...Again, you are assuming ICANN is the owner of all these domains. They are not. They "own" them because there are guns pointed at anyone that wants to seriously disagree.<br /><br />As far as the Ron Paul that matters. Again, faulty logic. The general opinion of the public or a particular search engine has nothing to do with someone's claim of ownership. Unless you have no principles or if you are in a statist, totalitarian society where the majority run roughshod over the minority. I'm sure you have principles, right?<br /><br />If the Ron we know has a claim to it, then so does every other Ron Paul on the planet.D. Lawless Hardwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416599643576620796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-23290635451456129462013-02-14T11:20:36.434-08:002013-02-14T11:20:36.434-08:00Your argument comes down to Wenzel's argument....Your argument comes down to Wenzel's argument...might makes right.<br /><br />You are essentially saying that Ron has no right to the website either. So, you will appeal to the guys with the guns and hope they treat you like a VIP.<br /><br />You haven't answered the libertarian part. No one has. Wenzel has at least attempted too. Every answer you give frames it as "libertarian" but within the constructs of the state sponsored monopoly ICANN. You have yet to explain, without mentioning ICANN, why Ron Paul should be able to forcibly take a domain that was homesteaded, maintained, improved, and operated by someone else for many years.<br /><br />Also, you have already been outed by this whole episode, but I am not the one telling others what they can do with their property. You are. ICANN did not obtain it's authority over the domain names in a legitimate manner. The domains are only ICANN's to do as they please with because there are a million government guns behind them telling everyone so.<br /><br />As I said before. No one has answered the libertarian question. Every answer you give assumes ICANN has a legitimate claim to the domains as their "property" OR that they at least have legitimate authority to manage the DNS system. They do not.<br /><br />Just as I use dollars because it makes my life better. I use the internet (I run an online hardware store) and "own" (at least I think I own, until someone like you comes along to take it from me.) many domains because it makes my life better. That doesn't mean that I have to agree that ICANN is legit or that the Fed is legit.D. Lawless Hardwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416599643576620796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-89470765620296658262013-02-14T10:15:40.935-08:002013-02-14T10:15:40.935-08:00“Why does Ron Paul feel that he is entitled, or ow...“Why does Ron Paul feel that he is entitled, or owed, or is the rightful owner of ronpaul dot com?”<br /><br />Only Ron Paul knows, and some clues are found in his filing. <br /><br />However, I will paste here my speculation on this, taken from my post at February 14, 2013 at 7:48 AM.<br /><br />-------------<br /><br />His name is Ron Paul. Although there are many with the name “Ron Paul” on earth, there is only one Ron Paul on earth where this name matters. He may not have a right to his reputation, but he certainly has a right to manage and defend the public perception of his reputation.<br /><br />He may have a right in contract - this is for the arbitration panel to decide. The contract was agreed to by the registrant. Contracts (written and unwritten) are one of the foundations of a libertarian society.<br /><br />-------------<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-9879081352391886832013-02-14T10:06:50.515-08:002013-02-14T10:06:50.515-08:00I will add...
"...but is this something they...I will add...<br /><br />"...but is this something they necessarily have to agree to before they can obtain a website? Certainly that is coercion is it not."<br /><br />In a libertarian society (just as in today's society), the registrants would have no "right" to have a website. Therefore there is no coercion.<br /><br />If the registrants want to make use of the entirety of internet infrastructure in support of their venture, the owners of that infrastructure have every right to place conditions on the use.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-19395042737386051562013-02-14T09:29:18.370-08:002013-02-14T09:29:18.370-08:00garrett, I appreciate the conversation. I too onl...garrett, I appreciate the conversation. I too only present my understanding, limited as it is.<br /><br />I guess my point is, if Jesus was against violence always and in all circumstances, why did Peter carry a sword? Did Jesus not know this fact?<br /><br />Why overturn the tables at the temple? This was a violent act, no?<br /><br />In any case, there are Christian believers on both sides of this - purely pacifist vs for defense. I won't claim to have the last word.bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-24895031784274104542013-02-14T09:24:45.732-08:002013-02-14T09:24:45.732-08:00Derrick
No one has a *right* to having a web site...Derrick<br /><br />No one has a *right* to having a web site. You want a domain name? The entity or entities that own(s) and operate(s) the systems upon which your site will reside and function can make the rules. If you don’t like the rules, don’t play the game. By what *right* do you claim to tell the owner of the good otherwise?<br /><br />As to my being the arbiter of the only Ron Paul that matters, do a Google search. Tell me how far down the list you go before you find another. Of all of the links, tell me how many are for people other than this Ron Paul.<br /><br />As to the libertarian principle, I have explained it. You don’t have to agree or accept it. But don’t keep asking.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-69725425642367039422013-02-14T09:14:20.718-08:002013-02-14T09:14:20.718-08:00Derrick, if you continue to post without having re...Derrick, if you continue to post without having read what has been written, I too will ignore you.<br /><br />It isn't a pure homestead issue: if someone has authority to require the registrant to meet certain terms, if he doesn't meet those terms then there will be consequences.<br /><br />The registrant doesn't own every aspect of the internet, upon which his site operates. One or more other entities are involved, and these relationships are governed in various manners. These entities have set conditions under which a registrant must operate. In the case of the domain name registrant, the relationship is governed as I have outlined here.<br /><br />This is closer to a license. The registrant has conditions that must be met if he is to continue using the domain name.<br />bionic mosquitohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12002548958078731031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-82101009505316366742013-02-14T08:50:45.636-08:002013-02-14T08:50:45.636-08:00The owners of RonPaul.com also own ronpaul.net, ro...The owners of RonPaul.com also own ronpaul.net, ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.info, etc. So why isn't Ron Paul attempting to seize those? Should the owners get to keep all of their RonPaul domains, some of them or none of them?<br /><br />I own RonPaul.NAME<br />Ron Paul wants his name and I got his .NAME<br />I don't see why I should get to keep my ronpaul.NAME domain while the RonPaul.com folks have to lose theirs....same goes for all the other Ron Paul sites...ronpaulforums.com, dailypaul.com, ronpaulmarket.com, etc. Those sites also registered a famous person’s name and are making money off it.<br />By the way he can have RonPaul.NAME for free if he gives me a phone call and politely requests it...and he won't get it if he doesn't call and send me an attorney's letter.<br /><br />Let me tell you the whole story about RonPaul.com...The current owners bought it on Ebay back in 2008 from a man whose name was also Ron Paul...they didn't cybersquat and initially register the domain themselves...I remember going to the Ebay auction back in 2008 and seeing RonPaul.com go for over $25,000...a Facebook friend of mine told me this<br />-------<br />"If Ron Paul could hire competent people, he would already own the damned thing. They are supporters who bought it at an auction, while his staff, as usual, ignored all the pleas from the grassroots to buy the damned thing for Ron.<br />No sympathy for him at all in this. The people that bought it kept the domain from falling into neocon hands, they spent their time and their money using the site to do nothing but support Ron and his message, and this is the thanks they get. No wonder libertarianism turns off so many people.<br />If Ron had any sense, he'd hire them to run the site. That's the win/win solution. But selling it to him would mean it will be run badly. If you doubt that for one second, check out his recent Facebook and Twitter posts. I suspect this is just another effort by those close to him to cash in on his name, now that the campaign well has run dry.<br />The story is this: another guy named Ron Paul owned it. He wasn't a fan and wouldn't sell it until the 2008 campaign was winding down. Then, he put it on eBay because they couldn't get on touch with Ron through the campaign.<br />I was one of the people calling and emailing the campaign. I had Benton's cell phone number - I personally left him messages. I called the office several times, I emailed the eBay listing to every Ron Paul contact I could find. The people that bought it did him a favor. Seeing millionaire Lew snark about the price they're asking is salt in the wound. Why the hell didn't he buy it back then, either?"<br /><br />http://web.archive.org/web/20070509005106/http://www.ronpaul.com/<br /><br />I think he should raise a money bomb to buy it...the 250K is negotiable so he'll pay less than that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-3744655295922344882013-02-14T08:50:06.154-08:002013-02-14T08:50:06.154-08:00The owners of RonPaul.com also own ronpaul.net, ro...The owners of RonPaul.com also own ronpaul.net, ronpaul2008.com, ronpaul.info, etc. So why isn't Ron Paul attempting to seize those? Should the owners get to keep all of their RonPaul domains, some of them or none of them? Why is Ron Paul more entitles to a .COm than a .NET?<br /><br />I own RonPaul.NAME<br />Ron Paul wants his name and I got his .NAME<br />I don't see why I should get to keep my ronpaul.NAME domain while the RonPaul.com folks have to lose theirs....same goes for all the other Ron Paul sites...ronpaulforums.com, dailypaul.com, ronpaulmarket.com, etc. Those sites also registered a famous person’s name and are making money off it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-25363100132703352282013-02-14T08:36:19.584-08:002013-02-14T08:36:19.584-08:00Faulty logic. My use of Federal Reserve notes do n...Faulty logic. My use of Federal Reserve notes do not infringe upon the property rights of other individuals. Ron Paul taking this domain name does infringe upon the rights of the homesteader of this domain.<br /><br />The function of a DNR could possibly be legitimate, that is another discussion entirely, but not if the contracts were created out of force. Obvious. To me and other real libertarians anyways.<br /><br />Reporting all the details honestly isn't something that only god is capable of. You all know and have purposely (you aren't dumb enough for it to be an accident) avoided the obvious fact that ICANN is a government sponsored monopoly.<br /><br />I have a hardware business. It is private. There are no other hardware businesses that can force anyone to use their hardware or that are in the very least in bed with the government every other night.<br /><br />Still waiting for a libertarian defense of why someone who properly homesteaded a domain name should be forced to give it up to ANYONE.D. Lawless Hardwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416599643576620796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-63082010544906365342013-02-14T08:33:01.795-08:002013-02-14T08:33:01.795-08:00I agree that Ron Paul is using the arbiter that th...I agree that Ron Paul is using the arbiter that the register agreed to use. I appreciate the homework and citations you provided, as they did clear up some of the fuzziness of this issue. However, my concern is still this: Why does Ron Paul feel that he is entitled, or owed, or is the rightful owner of ronpaul dot com? And I love Lew Rockwell, but he is way out of bounds with his throwing around the words "cybersquatting" and the like. ronpaul dot com has done nothing but promote Ron Paul, and to use the words cybersquatting is irresponsible and petty.<br /><br />Someone was forward-thinking and acquired a domain that could be monetized. That domain, as far as I know, never spoke ill of Ron Paul, or libeled Ron Paul, or try to hamper to work/campaign of Ron Paul. Now the good Doctor should just walk away. There is only a dispute because he regrets that he didn't get the domain when he could have. I regret that I didn't invent the iPhone. Where does this madness end?Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053744375760329891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-28118502863549722722013-02-14T08:25:37.041-08:002013-02-14T08:25:37.041-08:00You are forced with guns to sign the contract or y...You are forced with guns to sign the contract or you are not allowed to have a domain. It doesn't make it alright to steal just because the gunvernment says it's alright. What if the gunvernment made me sign a contract, through the use of its guns, that said I'd do certain things if they allowed me to breathe their air? Is this legitimate in your mind as well? A contract has no teeth, in a libertarian society, if it is constructed under the circumstances of force.<br /><br />Also, I see that you are the arbiter of when something "matters."<br /><br />Again, please explain on libertarian principle and philosophy why RP has a claim to this domain.D. Lawless Hardwarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10416599643576620796noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-648884752216444797.post-55453623359132028282013-02-14T08:21:48.998-08:002013-02-14T08:21:48.998-08:00Thanks for the response and for approving my comme...Thanks for the response and for approving my comment. I'm familiar with both of those other Scriptures you cite. <br /><br />I submit that the account of Jesus' arrest in Matthew is also worth considering, in the context of your first example. (Plus it's timely, from a current events perspective.) <br /><br />In Matthew 26:52, Jesus responds to Peter's violence by commanding Peter to put away the sword, saying those famous words: "all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (NIV's version) He then goes on to speak to fulfilling Scripture.<br /><br />So my understanding of this scene, taking both John's and Matthew's accounts into, um, account, is that Jesus is speaking more broadly than just telling Peter that that moment right then wasn't the right moment for violence. My understanding is Jesus is telling Peter (and all of us) that using violence, even in defense of the faultless innocent, is never OK, because of where it leads. Violence begets violence. (And love begets love.)<br /><br /><br />* * * * *<br /><br />By the way, I hope it's clear I'm just presenting my understanding of Jesus' teachings. I do believe my view (use of force even in defense is not authorized by Jesus) is correct, but I certainly don't know or claim to know I am correct. And I hope I'm not coming across as claiming to KNOW that any of this is right. I do not! <br /><br />:-)garretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15553626379883369886noreply@blogger.com