I should have taken care to note that violence and threats of violence are interchangeable in my opposition to violence. I think it is wrong for a person to hold a knife as if it he'd plunge it in your chest if you refuse his request for money. And I think it is wrong for the state to threaten to imprison you if you refuse its request for money, and do worse if you try to resist the imprisonment.
1) I was using theft as an anology to simplify and illustrate. The "Here," at the beginning of the next paragraph was meant to signal that.
2) Whether the holders of the domain are or are not taking advantage of consumer confusion is a factual issue that Paul obviously would dispute. And that's the point: There is a dispute, and it is consistent with libertarian principle to dispute what one views as a violation of one's rights, including trademark rights as they exist in the UDRP.
This is challenging stuff, so it's not surprising to have comments this confused.
It is not hypocritical to live under the current regime while advocating for another. That goes for roads, taxes, schooling, and every other thing, including domain-name-allocation rules.
The best legal explanation for domain names is that they are licenses-to-use, not the outright property of the domain name holder. The terms of the license bar fraudulent use and trademark violation. Paul believes that his trademark is being violated by the owners of the RonPaul.com domain and he is using the channels available to him to bring his case.
It might be preferable for domain names (more accurately, the right to associate a string in a given top-level domain with a given IP address) to be a piece of property, in which case Paul would bring a trademark action, or a common law fraud or trade disparagement action, against the holders of the domain. It's very much an open question whether the holders of the domain can be brought into a court that offers Paul the remedies he believes he's due. The current law allows him to move against the domain, and this is what he's doing.
Paul is not obligated to forgo the benefits of the law in this area just because he might structure the law differently.
A libertarian does not have to buy back stolen property to avoid charges of hypocrisy because the dispute resolution procedures of the police and courts are something libertarians embrace as part of the limited role of the state.
Here, Paul believes he has a case against the holders of the domain based on trademark (in that the holders of the RonPaul.com domain are taking advantage of confusion about the source of goods). He does not have to buy the domain, but can use the procedures in place to resolve the dispute without being hypocritical.
I don't know if that charge sticks to Mike, but there are Internet users who demand strict privacy protections as if they're cost-free, then bray against inconveniences and lost benefits that those privacy protections require.
What Carlos might do instead of arguing with the lawyers is to scrape the comments off the site, then marry them back up with the posts, or just scrape all posts, publicly available post data, comments, and available comment data. Pain in the ass, but then the data won't have been transferred by B&N.
Given the hostility of the FTC to companies transferring data, the B&N lawyer appears to be making the prudent decision.
Re: Re: I got yer 'Declaration of Internet Freedom'
Don't get too excited, folks. The Jim-Mike Schism is very likely to end if and when the actual meanings of the things said in this declaration translate to actual policy proposals.
It's question-begging to say of the declaration that it's important to speak out about what Internet freedom means. People know no more about what Internet freedom means after reading this document than before.
I view it as an attempt to reset who the authorities on Internet freedom are, from folks like the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, who produced a special and timeless plan for freedom in the U.S. (and worldwide, if others will have it) to a group of today's popular activists and thinkers. No, thanks!
I really like what is in the founding charter of the U.S., even though I'm deeply dissatisfied with (and working daily on) its implementation in certain areas, such as its translation so far into the modern communications environment.
In the meantime, I've enjoyed this very special airing of grievances!
I like this Declaration of Internet Freedom better. But the one I really like is the Bill of Rights. With gems like "Congress shall make no law," and, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated," I think the original Declaration of Internet Freedom is the bees knees.
I've been interested to see how much of the Bitcoin discussion is driven by its value as an investment vehicle. It's as if there's a forthcoming IPO or something.
Currency is a product that allows people and societies to avoid the transaction costs involved in barter. Some dimensions of currencies' utility include: liquidity/mass adoption, stable value/inflation resistance, surveillance resistance, seizure and theft resistance, convenience/speed/light weight, and a few other things I haven't thought of or remembered just now.
Bitcoin is better along some dimensions (e.g. highly inflation resistant, prospectively very convenient, and fairly surveillance and seizure resistant) and worse along other dimensions (highly illiquid as yet, and not very theft resistant - see 'cybersecurity,' including BitCoin7; MtGox was a close call, I guess). A lot of these things are technologically and socially determined, hence the "as yet"s and "propsectively," so I find the #Bitcoinfail meme at least premature. Status quo bias probably produced a #bottledwaterfail meme back in the day...
A notable theme here in the comments is that money requires central management. Study your history and you'll see that money came into existence spontaneously and without central management, and that fiat currency (i.e. centrally managed, with value established first by decree or law) always fails to maintain its value. The chart looks pretty much the same from the first fiat money issued in China thousands of years ago right up to Zimbabwe: a long slow decline, a hastening of the decline, sometimes a little recovery, then the value falls through the floor.
The value of money, just like everything else, rests on consensus. I think the question of where Bitcoin should be valued vis a vis other currencies and things will be socially and technologically determined by its "viscosity." If it's *only* used for transactions, it will have a low value compared to other things because it might be held for the hour or two it takes for a transaction to register and for the Bitcoin to be sold again. If it ends up sitting in people's wallet files (let's hope they know how to secure them), it will have a higher value compared to other things because there will be "less" of it around. Where it comes to rest doesn't matter. At scale, its value will be stable.
The alternative currency game is a long game that could take off incredibly quickly when the dollar and Euro make their way down the fiat money value curve. It's good to think ahead about what might happen in that event. Having a true online currency might be (and cause) a pretty cool shift in world history at that point.
So Bitcoin (and the underlying concept) are really interesting, important, and barely thought through yet. Here's hoping I get around to writing the definitive paper on it before the big monetary collapse!
No. It's really not. If someone walks up your driveway and won't leave on your command, you don't get to assault or batter that person. You violate their still-existing rights if you do. And if you shoot the person, you will go down for murder exactly as if you shot them in a public street. With "right to life," you refer to the narrow case (that's one case, not "many") when deadly force is used in defense of the home. I believe the rule survives in some states, and narrowly tailored it's one I support, but the right to use deadly force in defense of home is not part of a general waiver of all rights that occurs when someone commits a trespass. Back to the books (which I must say with some irony because you haven't cracked the books in the first instance ;-)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Privacy rights in a public spot?
You might be surprised to find that even parents aren't given all-day every-day access to schools. With "and not summer break" you appear to admit that a school is not a beach or public park, wide open to anyone who has the notion of stepping foot on its soil.
If the principal is to face the consequences of his actions, as you say, and among those consequences is appearing in civil court, as you say, just who else is going to bring him to civil court than the kids whose images he made into a titillating movie-show? You dismissed their grounds for suit and backed their suit in the same comment.