0337 pc272 Israel Anderson Builds a Straw Man
Bad Quaker Podcast
With Ben Stone
Ben dissects Israel Anderson’s pathetic straw man and asks some hard questions.
Did you notice that Israel put an overlay image on this page:
in the bottom right corner so you can’t click to go to YouTube? Cheesy.
Also, I’m sick of the argument of “they voluntarily agreed to ICANN arbitration when they signed up for the domain.” There is no non-monopoly option when getting a .com domain. The argument is like saying “You signed the social contract because you use the roads.”
If there is no non-monopoly option, why do you participate. Either stop being a hypocrite or apply the same standard that you do to voting.
Ron Paul is a Minarchist, he is not an Anarchist. Everything Ron is doing is consistent with Minarchy.
Lew Rockwell has begun posting rebuttals to the Anarchist and Statist critics of Ron Paul…
Lew Rockwell agrees with Israel Anderson.
ICANN is a private entity, its not the state.
When Ronpaulcom gets shut off, it wont be from the states guns, it wll be from a private keyboard within the private agency ICANN.
ICANN is a private organization, just as the United Nations Organization is, and both are backed by governments and treaties and guns and the promise of lots of violence. They pretty much are government organizations.
Lew Rockwell has begun posting on this topic over at the LRC blog.
but that’s the crux of the issue, isn’t it? The government runs the global internet and doesn’t allow competition in domain name systems. ICANN is enforcing the rules of that system and in a sense is acting like part of the state. And even if a free-market internet allowed only site per domain, would they really evict paying customers in favor of Joe Schmoe whenever a dispute over joeschmoe.com came up?
The ownership of joeschmoe.com isn’t in question. The ownership of ronpaul.com is. It’s in the interest of ALL users of the Internet that domain names tend to take us to the places we would expect them to – sight unseen.
Just like it’s to the benefit of someone who needs customer service and doesn’t have a phone book around, that dialing 1-800-SAMSUNG is probably going to connect them with Samsung, and not a pay by the minute phone sex line.
If the owners of ronpaul.com decided to provide pornography on their web site – which they would have every right to do, would that be in the best interests of the users of this commons? Would that be helpful to someone who typed in ronpaul.com wanting to find out more about him?
Names that AREN’T associated with real-world things that people have ownership of (brands, famous names, etc.) should be assigned on a first-come, first-served basis – as they are today. But why should someone be able to squat on a domain name that isn’t connected to them in any way shape or form? That’s silly.
I don’t even understand your example. Why would any normal person expect 1-800-SAMSUNG to connect to the company Samsung? Usually if you want a specialized phone number like that…. you have to pay for it, you don’t just get it for free because you’re Samsung.
Yes, clearly you don’t understand. However, people who understand that it’s wrong to try to profit from someone else’s name or likeness without their permissions DO understand.
They had his permission back in 2008, he profited from it through donation-bombs, and stuff.
The key element that you failed to address is this: did the current owner of RonPaul.com voluntarily agree to the specified dispute resolution process or not? If he did, then your entire argument is a big nothing-burger.
The Internet naming system is a COMMONS. If it’s not managed, then like any other commons, it quickly loses its value. You can gripe about which agency manages that commons, but if you’re trying to say that it shouldn’t be managed at all, then you’re a loon.
All of the evidence that’s been presented thus far indicates that Ron Paul is following the process that everyone signs on to when they register a domain name. If you have thought up a better mechanism for managing these types of disputes, then put it forward for public criticism.
All you’ve managed to do with this podcast is sound like someone with a poor grasp of both logic and common(s) sense.
Again, the argument of “they voluntarily agreed to ICANN arbitration when they signed up for the domain” is b.s.
There is no non-monopoly option when getting a .com domain. The argument is like saying “You signed the social contract because you use the roads.”
Propose one then. How would a non-monopoly work? Technically?
A domain name has to map to one owner. It’s nonsense to argue otherwise.
If I go to http://www.xyz.com am I then supposed to click link A if I want Joe Schmoe’s version of xyz.com and click link B if I want Ron Paul’s version of xyz.com?
That doesn’t work for the same reason that two businesses can’t share the same phone number.
So propose a solution that doesn’t cripple the product – if you can.
BitCoin & torrents do fine with decentralized “domains”. Ask any geek how they work, I have neither the inclination, nor the time to explain them to you right now.
If there is no non-monopoly option, then apply the same standard as YOU do to voting and do not participate. Otherwise risk being a hypocrite. Domain names are not private properties. They are more like rented apartments.
Is there a reason my replies are ‘awaiting moderation’ while other people’s seem to be going right through?
Michael, propose a non-monopoly system of governing the domain name commons that doesn’t cripple the system. I don’t believe there is one, so enlighten me, please.
Anderson has always been a horse’s ass…
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>