@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."
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
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.
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.
Also undoing the whole domain name system is not letting Ronpaul.com own Ronpaul.com, read that more carefully dude.
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.
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.
You need to reread what I have written. Until you can summarize my position, have a good day.