Posted on 12/06/2006 6:48:38 PM PST by blam
I'm afraid I don't know how far out the International Waters Zones are, but accept you are probably correct. This does actually give support to Hanks view I think. It becomes pretty arbitrary doesn't it, how far out a country decides it "owns" the waters. Moreover, we should be clear, these decisions aren't made by "countries" ie everyone in them, but by a group of beaurocrats and politicians.
As Hank says, the problem is that there are mixes of good and bad concepts. I have no problem with the concept of a country with access from the sea needing to claim some part of that sea as their own country, largely in the name of self defence. And I must admit, my once held view that all countries should be open to anyone have taken a dive after observing the events in Europe and the UK over the last few years. Give how very different various peoples are, the idea of the sovereign nation state I think is important as a means of self protection from a huge mob of people with vastly different ideas concerning life and liberty to ourselves. And this concept does involve use of a margin of sea. And having said this, given that a margin of sea is considered part of the shore country, then the people of the shore country have a right to prevent any unwanted incursion into it.
be interested if anyone wants to argue a flaw in my argument.
It's not just Asians. Scandinavians can be pretty bad, what with "lutefisk" (fish soaked in lye) and there's some sort of Icelandic delicacy that involves burying a large ray in the sand at the beach, letting it rot, and then eating it, I believe.
"What do you think?"
I think anyone who worships Terry Pratchett probably does not really understand the principles I'm talking about.
For example, how does one, "conserve the fish numbers," except by failing to fish? And these "Austarlian {sic} fisermen are "voluntarily" limiting their fishing. How environmental. And for their PC environmentalism, the Australian government thugs may "board" uninvited other people's fishing boats, simply because they do not agree with the Australian fisherman's view of how fishing ought to be done.
Therefore protectionism by force is OK to prevent, the "undisciplined ignorant wholesale takes," which means you believe it is alright to use force to prevent people from being undisciplined and ignorant, right?
Well, what can one expect of someone whose principles are learned from Terry Pratchett.
"So can I come and run some sheep on your property, since you cannot own your area."
This may be difficult for you, but real estate and the sea are a bit different. What I said was, "no one owns or has a right to control by force anything they have not earned." When someone works (earns) or buys real estate (with money they have earned) that gives them the right to control it entirely.
Thank you for the comments. You think, apparently governments sometimes have a right to initiate force; I dont.
Hank
Well Hank, I don't think governments or anyone else has any right to initiate the use of force, and that isn't what I was saying.
I was talking about governments protecting the people who pay taxes to be protected from incursion by invading peoples.
And the restriction on over fishing wasn't "environmental" but in order to make sure there would be plenty of fish left to keep providing the industry and their consumers with a product.
I don't understand your comments about Terry Pratchet.
I neither worship, nor have I learned anything from him from nor anyone else. I just try to think things out for myself.
Pratchett, like a number of other things in life, just provide some lighthearted amusement. I'm sorry you've misunderstood.
Actually Hank, I have to say I'm pretty angry about this comment
Well, what can one expect of someone whose principles are learned from Terry Pratchett
I had not thought that presenting a different view to yours and attempting to debate it would get me slandered with a personal attack.
Perhaps you'd like to provide the evidence for that statement?
If I've "learned" anything in philosopy it's been from Rand and Firehammer. But most of what I think I've come to for myself. It might be wrong. But it's mine.
"I'm pretty angry about this comment"
So sorry! Just teasing you about your screename and tagline, which are both from Pratchett. You should have known I was joking, what could one possibly learn from him?
(You'll probably be angry about that too. Oh well!)
If you like Pratchet why would you think someone noticing that is slandering or attacking you? Neither was my intent, but I can't help how other people react. Still, I'm truly sorry if you were truly hurt. I never attack anyone or intentionally hurt them.
Hank
I accept no man made law.
Hank
It's amazing you've lived this long....
Semper Fi
Well Hank, I guess if you look at the way your words were, the context was a bit insulting. I don't take insult from getting some mild pleasure sometimes from Pratchett. When this world gets me really down - which these days is often - I enjoy escaping to another, lighter and sillier world.
Thats all it is. I never suggested anyone with any learning could learn from him, although I think some uninformed people out there might.
Still feel the same about the protecting sovereign waters.
Thanks for apology. You're a nice guy. Check out Firehammer while you're at it !!!
Something about EricBlair11's FReepername sounds Orwellian to me.
As they say in his role model's (Al Gore) home state of Tennesse,
"Thet boyah ain't rite in the haid!"
That's great. Meanwhile, the rest of us who live in the real world, WITH those man-made laws, will continue to be part of society. Nice to see you don't accept those little things, like the Constitution of the United States, or, y'know, other laws that seem to have been penned and signed by men.
hahaha. They're using tear gas for crying out loud. That's not moxie. That's a somewhat-stern talkin to.
Hi Aussieteen,
Since the US government does not pay any attention to the US Constitution you should no be too alarmed that I do not. In fact, I live by principles that are in total agreement with that Constitution, which means all those laws which are a contradiction of it (unconstitutional--that is most of them) are the one's I disregard.
Laws, by the way, are not for those who live morally, but for those who do not. When a law is immoral, it is immoral to obey it.
Just a couple of thoughts. They are mine and I do not expect you to agree with them. I wish you luck living by obeying men's laws, but know you'd more successful if you choose to live by the truth and not by what some idiotic beaurocrats make up.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.