General

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:44:17 GMT

h.k.:

Well clearly you keep implying I think they own a phone number, that calls into question your effort and or reading comphrehension dude.

You, sir, are a colossal idiot. Nowhere have I implied this. I am using an analogy to try to get through to you. Evidently, you prefer to ignore the analogy and go on tangents.

h.k:

Also Libertarians are indeed in favor of ignoring "private" stipulations, if they are dealing with a very publically influenced institution, such as banks. Try again.

You need to reread what I have written. Until you can summarize my position, have a good day.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

h.k. — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:05:54 GMT

gotlucky:

There is no necessary reason to fully undo the domain name system. There may or may not exist better alternatives. Why don't you read more carefully so I don't have to repeat myself so much?

Well clearly you keep implying I think they own a phone number, that calls into question your effort and or reading comphrehension dude.

Also Libertarians are indeed in favor of ignoring "private" stipulations, if they are dealing with a very publically influenced institution, such as banks. Try again.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:02:10 GMT

There is no necessary reason to fully undo the domain name system. There may or may not exist better alternatives. Why don't you read more carefully so I don't have to repeat myself so much?

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

h.k. — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 02:00:01 GMT

gotlucky:

h.k.:

There are two ways to answer this question.

1) If ICANN is considered a private institution:

Then yes they can do whatever they want, Ron Paul is behaving rudely though, which is a moral but not legal matter. Ron Paul is kind of a sneaky guy, with some questionable moral behavior.

ICANN is indeed a private organization. Even if it wasn't fully private, all that would demonstrate is that there can be rules that we don't necessarily agree with, but you can't prove that this is a rule that should be illegal. It's an idiotic rule in my opinion, and a rule that is highly unlikely to be found in a fully decentralized society, but there is nothing inherently unlibertarian about the rule.

h.k.:

2)If ICANN is seen as a quasi-private company, heavily reliant on central planning (like JP Morgan for example):

Then we should go by Libertarian homesteading principles, not what is technically legal. Remember we are Austrian Economists not lawyers. No one should own any domain names at all, undo the whole domain name system thing Snake Plissken style. Ron Paul is still not entitled to anything.

No one homesteaded the domain name. Domain names are just a means of connecting computers to servers. The computers are not supplied by ICANN. The servers are not supplied by ICANN. The cables in the ground connecting computers and servers are not supplied by ICANN. Those are homesteadable libertarian properties.

This is like Verizon assigning you with a phone number, 1-800-555-1234. You don't own that phone number. Verizon doesn't own that phone number. When someone dials 1-800-555-1234, their phone service company doesn't have to connect their phone to yours. Each phone company could use an entirely different list of phone numbers, with each company assigning 1-800-555-1234 to different people. This would be a pretty useless system for most people, and customers want to be able to connect to their family, friends, colleagues, customers, etc., reliably. So the phone companies don't run around assigning 1-800-555-1234 to various families throughout the country.

If I appealed to Verizon to have them assign 1-800-555-1234 to me instead of you by appealing to some bizarre stipulation in the contract Verizon had with you, that might make me a dick, but it doesn't make my appeal unlibertarian.

Also undoing the whole domain name system is not letting Ronpaul.com own Ronpaul.com, read that more carefully dude.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

h.k. — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:56:53 GMT

If ICANN is a heavily centralized agency, then it does matter. Everything you just said would be invalid.

To me JP Morgan is not private, not all their stipulations matter, even if they say they do.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:46:34 GMT

h.k.:

There are two ways to answer this question.

1) If ICANN is considered a private institution:

Then yes they can do whatever they want, Ron Paul is behaving rudely though, which is a moral but not legal matter. Ron Paul is kind of a sneaky guy, with some questionable moral behavior.

ICANN is indeed a private organization. Even if it wasn't fully private, all that would demonstrate is that there can be rules that we don't necessarily agree with, but you can't prove that this is a rule that should be illegal. It's an idiotic rule in my opinion, and a rule that is highly unlikely to be found in a fully decentralized society, but there is nothing inherently unlibertarian about the rule.

h.k.:

2)If ICANN is seen as a quasi-private company, heavily reliant on central planning (like JP Morgan for example):

Then we should go by Libertarian homesteading principles, not what is technically legal. Remember we are Austrian Economists not lawyers. No one should own any domain names at all, undo the whole domain name system thing Snake Plissken style. Ron Paul is still not entitled to anything.

No one homesteaded the domain name. Domain names are just a means of connecting computers to servers. The computers are not supplied by ICANN. The servers are not supplied by ICANN. The cables in the ground connecting computers and servers are not supplied by ICANN. Those are homesteadable libertarian properties.

This is like Verizon assigning you with a phone number, 1-800-555-1234. You don't own that phone number. Verizon doesn't own that phone number. When someone dials 1-800-555-1234, their phone service company doesn't have to connect their phone to yours. Each phone company could use an entirely different list of phone numbers, with each company assigning 1-800-555-1234 to different people. This would be a pretty useless system for most people, and customers want to be able to connect to their family, friends, colleagues, customers, etc., reliably. So the phone companies don't run around assigning 1-800-555-1234 to various families throughout the country.

If I appealed to Verizon to have them assign 1-800-555-1234 to me instead of you by appealing to some bizarre stipulation in the contract Verizon had with you, that might make me a dick, but it doesn't make my appeal unlibertarian.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

h.k. — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:34:47 GMT

gotlucky:

The only things that can be owned in a libertarian sense are the physical objects, such as computers, servers, connecting lines, etc. The domain name list exists within some of the hardware, such as servers and computers. ICANN is a domain name registry, but no one is forced by law to use it. It is the most popular and widely used list, almost definitely because of its origins with the US government, but no one forces you to use it. If you "buy" certain domain names, you are actually just renting a space on ICANN's list. ICANN is not in control of all domain names in existence. You don't even have to use one of the many official registries. You could use an unofficial registry or even make your own, but it would be pointless to do so unless a sufficient number of people use the same list.

RonPaul.com rented a spot on the list from ICANN, which is a private organization. As per the contract, ICANN can revoke that spot in favor of someone else who actually has that name in real life. It's a silly rule in my opinion, but as a private organization, ICANN is free to make that rule. Ron Paul is appealing to that rule.

I doubt very many libertarians would be bitching at Ron Paul if he was appealing to a landlord to throw out a tenant by appealing to a silly stipulation in their contract. Sure, it might be a bitch move, but there is nothing unlibertarian about it.

There are two ways to answer this question.

1) If ICANN is considered a private institution:

Then yes they can do whatever they want, Ron Paul is behaving rudely though, which is a moral but not legal matter. Ron Paul is kind of a sneaky guy, with some questionable moral behavior.

2)If ICANN is seen as a quasi-private company, heavily reliant on central planning (like JP Morgan for example):

Then we should go by Libertarian homesteading principles, not what is technically legal. Remember we are Austrian Economists not lawyers. No one should own any domain names at all, undo the whole domain name system thing Snake Plissken style. Ron Paul is still not entitled to anything.

If I had to pick between two entitled people on welfare, I would want to give my fake property and taxes to the group that has exhibited more Libertarian homesteading principles.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:20:21 GMT

The only things that can be owned in a libertarian sense are the physical objects, such as computers, servers, connecting lines, etc. The domain name list exists within some of the hardware, such as servers and computers. ICANN is a domain name registry, but no one is forced by law to use it. It is the most popular and widely used list, almost definitely because of its origins with the US government, but no one forces you to use it. If you "buy" certain domain names, you are actually just renting a space on ICANN's list. ICANN is not in control of all domain names in existence. You don't even have to use one of the many official registries. You could use an unofficial registry or even make your own, but it would be pointless to do so unless a sufficient number of people use the same list.

RonPaul.com rented a spot on the list from ICANN, which is a private organization. As per the contract, ICANN can revoke that spot in favor of someone else who actually has that name in real life. It's a silly rule in my opinion, but as a private organization, ICANN is free to make that rule. Ron Paul is appealing to that rule.

I doubt very many libertarians would be bitching at Ron Paul if he was appealing to a landlord to throw out a tenant by appealing to a silly stipulation in their contract. Sure, it might be a bitch move, but there is nothing unlibertarian about it.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

h.k. — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:10:59 GMT

gotlucky:

Then it appears you have no idea how the domain name system actually works.

I got your argument I just thought it didn't make sense.

I don't own my phone number, but my phone company has decided that I have. The same thing here except replace me with Ronpaul.com. Ron Paul doesn't deserve anything, at best he's making an argument to undo the whole system.

If there's anything incorrect here then go ahead and clarify, it's not like I'm biased against him.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:06:03 GMT

Then it appears you have no idea how the domain name system actually works.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

h.k. — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 01:04:20 GMT

gotlucky:

@h.k.

This post here might help illuminate the situation for you.

Nah I saw that already, but thanks.

I think Marko put it best, personally.

"It is a moot point. The people who registered ronpaul.com didn't just put a placeholder site there and waited for when around RP is going to come around so they can have a payday. They registered it in good faith and used it to build a vibrant pro-RP grassroots site around it. They did real homesteading after registering.

You could as well be saying a settler who built a cabin in Colonial-era West Virginia didn't really own the land underneath it because he had first purchased it from the Virginia Company which had never owned it.

Registering with ICANN is a hurdle imposed by the state on would-be homesteaders of domains. But people shouldn't be penalized for having to jump this hurdle and their whole homestead being proclaimed illegitimate, because a state-enabled monopolist shook them down for some money before they could exercise their natural right to homestead vaccant domains."

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

gotlucky — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:53:54 GMT

@h.k.

This post here might help illuminate the situation for you.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

h.k. — Fri, 01 Mar 2013 00:49:38 GMT

excel:

At this point it doesn't matter, he's taken the incorrect position. Ronpaul.com seems to have homesteaded their website to a higher degree than Ron Paul has, according to Libertarian principles. Further he's wrong about IP, which is also not defendable.

I don't understand this point. ronpaul.com is not a place, and it's not connected in any meaningful way to the server that houses the data that makes up the content that you access through the use of the dns beyond actually having a reference to that IP address.

The true owner of the "ronpaul.com -> IP-address" row that exists in some database somewhere must at this point be whoever owns that database, which is the agency with whom ron paul has filed his complaint, but further than that, it also belongs to every DNS provider who have ronpaul.com pointing to the specific IP address of the server of the ronpaul.com site.

The only property rights ron paul is able to infringe on in such a case would be that of the DNS providers, not of the ronpaul.com server owners, and he is not attempting to do that. (Ie, the clause he's using to have them change the row in the database is one set out by the database owners themselves for these kinds of scenarios.)

The traffic-sign analogy is extremely apt in this situation. The ronpaul.com website server is a farm. The owners of the farm have paid the owners of a series of traffic signs to point to the farm. ron paul wants the signs to point to some other place.

The question is whether the farm-owner or the traffic sign company owns the sign. In this case, the traffic sign company still owns the sign.

Forgive my laziness, but could you clarify exactly what he wants to do? It STILL sounds like a partial IP case at best.

Yes he wants to change just one row in the DNS server database, if I understood you correctly, but this will mean he now owns ronpaul.com, corrrect? I see no reason why he should own it more than the current owners of ronpaul.com

I understand the illegitimacy of our current domain name system, your post was somewhat not clear though. Having to choose between two parties, the current owners of ronpaul.com seem to have a more legitimate claim.

The most fundamental argument was not addressed, at best no one should be able to have any domain names then. Ron Paul is not entitled to anything from a traffic sign company.

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

Clayton — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:47:52 GMT

Not because I never make mistakes, but because we could spend months criticizing eachothers semantics and never get to any conclusion other than the English language is imprecise.

It is as precise as you choose to make it. The snippet you quoted does not say or imply "Ron Paul is either a hypocrite or ignorant", you said a hypothetical person (not Ron Paul) who committed murder or cannibalism or whatever - after saying murder or cannibalism is wrong - would be viewed by people as a fraud and they would think he either doesn't understand or follow his own principles. I'll entertain your attempt to rewrite history far enough to point out that "doesn't understand" is cognitive, whereas "ignorance" is epistemic. But, in any case, none of those three paragraphs were actually talking about Ron Paul, they were all addressing the hypothetical characters you created in three different strawman scenarios that could not possibly have less to do with ronpaul.com.

Which brings us back to my last post, which you did not address. Either Ron Paul is (a) a hypocrite, or (b) he is ignorant. The conditions for one of these clauses to be true are:

a) Show when/where Ron Paul has expressed opposition to IP/trademark law (and is now using it)

b) Explain what Ron Paul is ignorant of

I'm not holding my breath for any sort of "precise" answer...

Clayton -

Re: Ron Paul vs. RonPaul.com

Clayton — Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:36:37 GMT

At this point it doesn't matter, he's taken the incorrect position.

This is neither here nor there - Seraiah's assertion was that Ron Paul is a hypocrite (or ignorant), both of which are independent of the correctness/incorrectness of one's beliefs or actions.

Clayton -